EmporerJulian:

"Well there has never been the slightest violence between the two of us in our 34 years of marriage and counting."

There have been many men who have said that and now find themselves in jail. Remember there is a one in three chance that you will be violent to your missus until the day you die so I wouldn't get too cocky.

R0bert, "There are very good reasons to challenge the dishonest claims of DV being highly gendered, both to help reduce overall levels of DV and to give all victims of violent (or just plain abusive) spouses meaningful access to support"

Agreed.

Other Very Important reasons:

1. The scientific community has a duty to ensure that published fraud is non-existent.

2. The need for evidence-based policymaking.

<What Is Evidence-Based Policymaking?

Evidence-based policymaking uses the best available research and data on program results to inform government budget, policy, and management decisions. It focuses on what works—those programs that rigorous evaluations have shown to achieve positive outcomes. By using this approach, governments can:

• Reduce wasteful spending. Targeting funding based on evidence of effectiveness enables policymakers to identify and eliminate programs that have failed to deliver expected results, freeing dollars for other uses.

• Expand successful programs. Comparing programs allows policymakers to direct funding to those that deliver the highest return on investment.

• Strengthen accountability. Focusing on outcomes makes it easier to hold agencies, managers, and providers
accountable for results.>

http://tinyurl.com/odsa55k

The basher lobby are sure twisting and turning.

“Admitting that eyes glazed over when confronted with evidence for a case he does not want to hear just looks like someone with little interest in truth who wants their prejudices to run unchallenged.”
## No. It’s because the “case” trotted out ad nauseam by the basher lobby is about gender not about the committing of DV. Factoids, true or untrue, are a colossal bore in a thread about ending DV when they don’t relate to ending DV.

“Remember there is a one in three chance that you will be violent to your missus until the day you die”
## Misuse of statistics, which relate en masse to a gender, not to an individual with a mind.

“an uncorroborated statement to me or were you a fly on the wall at the time? But in your eyes enough evidence to give the ex a hefty gaol sentence...back to the lynch mob days.
## No, he would have had to be convicted in a defended court trial for ABH or worse. Basher impunity plus self-protection of officialdom (especially in Britain where the DV took place) ensured no official charges likely. The impunity for domestic bashers was as entrenched then as the impunity for priestly kiddy-fiddlers

“I like your backward rationalization making the argument that because there has not been any violence between you and your mrs in 34 years, it therefore means that mrs's ex must have been violent and the mrs has been an angel since she took her first breath.
## No. Simply that he dished out violence and she copped it.

More

continued

“Turnbull's 'progressive' populism and repeating the mantras doesn't translate into votes for the LNP.”
## Note that “populism” is Newspeak for responding democratically to popular opinion, and that the LNP trailed in every opinion poll since it revealed that its election pitch was lies, and climbed back to 50% only after it dumped its failed PM.

Greg Anderson: I’ve downloaded Ms Batty’s book and read 35% so far. To date (2002) Anderson comes across as someone who threw himself unstintingly into manual labour for the Batty household and whose only real defect was that he was a religious lunatic. No signs of violence. Ms Batty comes across as a user at least in the domestic setting, doggedly determined to keep the father out of her life But there’s 12 years to go to the 2014 murder so I’ll read on.

Julian, how do you think persistently using an offensive ad hominen "basher lobby" helps your arguments?

"## No. Simply that he dished out violence and she copped it." So if it is that simple in addition to that uncorroborated hearsay I take it, why did you have to add this?:

"Well there has never been the slightest violence between the two of us in our 34 years of marriage and counting. Not even a hint of it. Didn’t have to grab my wrist like Dr Strangelove."

EmperorJulian,

Populist referring to the current crew of politicians and bearing in mind the political (and media) environment, refers to personalised politics: charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to build personal power. That is through pandering to the fears and greed of the emotional and short-attention-span mob, influenced by the chattering classes.

Shorten is a far better example of populist than Turnbull, promising everything and positing it as a fight against the 'wealthy and advantaged', who are the embodiment of all evil (tax avoiders too!) and an excuse for those who have not achieved all that much in life and are resentful.

Labor leaders are rich men and women, educated, middle class and privileged, entirely unlike many who put them there. Labor PMs for example have been proved to do very well out of politics and their contacts later in their business pursuits. Just check the number of ex-PM and ex-minister Labor people representing wealthy Chinese interests to buy Oz real estate and prime agricultural land, for instance.

It is a constant mystery how the Labor and Greens followers can swallow all of those populist political platforms to redistribute wealth to gain popularity, without regard to the consequences for the country such as inflation or debt. -Especially where the past and present 'Progressive' leaders concerned are known to be feathering their own nests.

Regarding Turnbull, he is just feeding the feminist cow dung of 'patriarchy' and gendered violence back to the noisy, entitled, educated middle class elite and @ 'only' $100million of taxpayers dollars, Turnbull figures the populism is a cheap buy (but so do Shorten et al).

Those are the self-seeking grubs of career politicians who shoulder out the statesmen who would offer themselves for political representation if things were different.

Now, what about you direct some comment at the main thrust of my post above? This one,

onthebeach, Monday, 12 October 2015 11:31:16 PM