RObert,

"I hope the point that Roscop is trying to make though is that hounding someone through the family law system over many years can contribute to someone with a weakness who might otherwise cope OK cracking and doing the unthinkable."

And the point I am making is what is a woman supposed to do "if" she and their children are subjected to ongoing violence by a partner and father? What can a mother do but attempt to use the legal system to keep the offender at bay?

"That sometimes the processes supposedly put their to protect can be wielded as a weapon that wears otherwise good but not perfect people down. That abuse of the legal systems can sometimes contribute to the breakdown of the the person being attacked through that system."

Batty claims she/they were exposed to 12 years of ongoing violence by this man.

This man went on to savagely beat his son to death.

It would seem that Batty's claims had veracity - and that he wasn't "a good" man worn down"...he was a man who was capable of unthinkable violence.

I realise what you are saying, RObert...we have several male friends (one in particular) who have been treated badly by women in the area of their children...through the system - and I sympathise with men who are treated like that. (All good men - who wouldn't dream of hurting their children to punish the mother...and I'm happy to report that in two of the cases, the children ended up living happily with Dad in the end anyway)

However, the same can't be said of Anderson, who by reason of his history and his devastating attack on his son, should not be accorded mitigation..it appears he was a violent man who, if he'd been kept right away from his son, would not have been able to kill him.

Suse,

"There is NO excuse for what he did, none at all.

The fact that Roscop uses a disgusting human like Anderson as a poster boy for Roscop's gripe against the system says a lot about him...."

Yup...

Poirot as I said I don't know the particulars of that case enough to have a view on it.

I do though think a lot of the debate seems to assume that if someone is hounded and hounded and eventually cracks that proves the initial hounding was justified rather than a contributor to the end result.

Then sometimes people do need to take steps to protect themselves and those they love from an abuser. I don't have easy answers to that quandary, both sides of the argument have value. Suseonline made a point on another thread about mental health services which seems very relevant. They are in a poor state and as I understand it very difficult to access for many who most need them.

"and I'm happy to report that in two of the cases, the children ended up living happily with Dad in the end anyway" - a hard thing to be optimistic about when you are in the thick of it but great when it works out better than it might have in the end.

R0bert

RObert,

"I do though think a lot of the debate seems to assume that if someone is hounded and hounded and eventually cracks that proves the initial hounding was justified rather than a contributor to the end result."

Rosie Batty reported a history of violence from Anderson which, I assume, is documented by authorities.

What does it take for a man to savagely beat an innocent physically weaker person to death like that?

Let alone a child - his son?

I mean, what does it take!

People on this earth go through great hardships in many different aspects of life. There are so many cruelties and so many unfair circumstances.

We'd be hard pushed to find a more depraved action than the one perpetrated by Anderson against his young son.

If you guys want to give an example of someone hard done-by by the system - please don't insult our intelligence by holding up Anderson as a victim.

Poirot it would help if you actually read my posts and tried to understand what I said rather than what you want someone you disagree with to say.

Andersen is dead so his side of the story won't be told. What the authorities know or think they know is coloured by the gendered portrayal of DV that currently holds centre stage so unless there were specific incidents with evidence etc I'll reserve judgement on the leadup. Quite willing to join in the condemnation of the outcome, what he did is never OK regardless of how much he was or was not pushed by Rose and the system. An utterly vile act.

There is to much none of us know for either side to legitimately hold either party up as a poster boy or girl.

A great human tragedy with two people losing their lives, a mother loosing a son, other family and friends living with the loss. Anderson's actions are reprehensible but I doubt many sane people in our culture decide to club their child to death so tend to the assumption that he had reached a breaking point. I don't know that, I don't hold him up as a poster boy not though do I automatically accept that the only plausible scenario is him as the evil villain throughout the story.

R0bert

Greg Anderson is the starkest evidence that violent scumbags should be kept where they can't commit any violent physical assault, ranging from ABH and battery to murder, on anyone (no matter hiow uppity) on whom they can project power. That means secure prison, to be released only after the victim has attested that s/he (usually she) no longer fears him/her(usually him). If it means life incarceration so be it.

Ms Batty's allegations against him may or may not have been substantiatable by demonstrable evidence but he was a kiddieporn collector (in gaol parlance a rock spider) and he made sense of what Ms Batty had been alleging and her efforts to protect Luke from him the moment he viciously murdered the child as soon as he could get to him.

Closer to home are those who are using this Forum to peddle propaganda excusing the likes of Greg Anderson and opposing their being locked up to prevent their doing the same. If police are told someone is a basher they should investigate the story with great care in case it's true - which it is in many, many instances.

RObert,

Suse and I had just finished discussing Anderson and criticising Roscop for attempting to blame Batty.

You followed straight up with:

"I don't know enough detail on the specifics of that particular situation to have formed an opinion. Anderson could have just been bad to start with or he could have been a flawed human pushed and pushed until he cracked.

I hope the point that Roscop is trying to make though is that hounding someone through the family law system over many years can contribute to someone with a weakness who might otherwise cope OK cracking and doing the unthinkable."

"I do though think a lot of the debate seems to assume that if someone is hounded and hounded and eventually cracks that proves the initial hounding was justified rather than a contributor to the end result."

And now you tick me off for rebutting that aspect of your last comment.

You seem to be quite a careful and thoughtful poster - I assume that those comments were purposeful - and meant to in some way to mitigate the actions of some men.

That we had been discussing Anderson and his vile actions just prior to your comment - and in light of Roscop's ongoing targeting of Batty, It's not unreasonable that I would comment as I did on your post[s].