Just to add that, yes, RObert, I understand that yo will protest that you were being "cautious" in your post and that I have unfairly included you in my rant.

As usual you came in sitting on the fence...but also as usual you supported Roscop's main thrust and put forward the proposition of fragility, etc"

"Was a fragile person driven round the twist by manipulation of systems put in place to protect people..."

As far as I'm concerned if it's good enough for you to include those kinds of points as representative of your views, it's good enough for me to rebut them.

I suggest normal people would consider the fact that Anderson bashed Luke Batty on the back of the head with a cricket bat and cut his throat was more material in the child's death than any excuses about the mother's non-violent behaviour which included co-operation with access, beyond what was strictly required, on the final day of the child's life.

I know it's simplistic in the eyes of gender warriors to say so, but normal people do have this prejudiced view that a violent bash on the head with a cricket bat followed by a slashed throat is likely to cause death.

Marital malfeasance runs back to the dawn of time, but only violent criminals **DO** domestic violence and they can do so only when they're at large.

Most MPs are normal people and would react positively to suggestions by constituents that combatting DV by targeting the violent criminals is the only route to a positive overall result before 2200. A few neighbours and I have alrady got together to write to our local Member Michael Keenan and to Mr Turnbull pointing this out.

Poirot

>"I was emotionally abused. I was pushed by my wife and the system so much, and being such a fragile person, I was practically forced to make the decision to target my son and viciously beat him to death."

>How do you think that defence would go before the courts or with the "men" and "women" out there in suburbia?

Not very well I'd suggest. No one would pay silk good money to put up a defence with such brevity and phrased in such a blatantly flippant manner. So your comment does nothing to advance the argument.

The tactics used by Poirot do get tiring. Pointing out to Roscop my concerns about assumptions in a particular case get recast by Poirot as "at the two of you attempting to mitigate Anderson's particularly heinous actions"

Hard to believe that is extremely poor comprehension, seems more likely to be a deliberate misrepresentation to divert attention from the point being made.

Seeing the possibility that issues are not all black and white is cast as sitting on the fence. If seeing that there can be more than one side to an issue is fence sitting then in my view it is by far the more honest place to sit rather than on the side doing everything possible to hamper any genuine attempts to discuss or understand the others POV.

I'll try another parallel although I pretty much expect that to be misrepresented (or turned into an attack to divert from the point). In the middle east I tend to a position that favors Israel over its neighbours seeing that for some Israels very existence is intolerable. I'm also able to see that a significant proportion of the attacks on Israilis are significantly contributed to by the treatment of Palestinians. I don't endorse the killing that goes on (especially of noncombatants) but can still see that an ongoing campaign if restrictions and retaliation that hits those not responsible for attacks on Israel contributes to the problem.

The same for a lot of issues. If that's fence sitting then I'd prefer that position to the pretence that its all the other aides fault.

R0bert

RObert,

"The tactics used by Poirot do get tiring. Pointing out to Roscop my concerns about assumptions in a particular case get recast by Poirot as "at the two of you attempting to mitigate Anderson's particularly heinous actions"

Hard to believe that is extremely poor comprehension, seems more likely to be a deliberate misrepresentation to divert attention from the point being made.

Seeing the possibility that issues are not all black and white is cast as sitting on the fence. If seeing that there can be more than one side to an issue is fence sitting then in my view it is by far the more honest place to sit rather than on the side doing everything possible to hamper any genuine attempts to discuss or understand the others POV."

Yes, but the discussion you purposely joined in this "particular case" was about Greg Anderson and the calculated and brutal murder of his son.

You immediately started waxing lyrical about possible "fragility" and "manipulation of systems".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-23/luke-batty-inquest-father-was-100-per-cent-bad/5835800

"Senior Constable Paul Topham told the inquest on Thursday he had "a large number" of conversations with Ms Batty in the year before Anderson killed Luke and was aware Anderson consistently failed to turn up to court hearings about their son."

""The first time I arrested him he became extremely aggressive and I took my OC spray out.

"He was in control of the situation... he was smart enough to shut it down before it got to the next level."

Anderson was never diagnosed with mental illness and Senior Constable Topham told the inquest he saw no signs of mental instability.

"Without a question in my mind, as we say, he was 100 per cent bad...not mad.

"His demeanour...he had no regards for authority whatsoever... whatever we did for this guy, he didn't care."

We were discussing Anderson when you arrived, you knew that, yet you thought it was good opportunity to add your usual line of argument -which is to introduce doubt and cite possible harassment by the system as a catalyst for any wrongdoing by a violent male.

For those not back checking on Poirots misrepresentation I'll point out that I joined in to point out to Roscop my concerns about making assumptions in a specific case without very good evidence. My point was very clear that while there is a valid point that pursuit through the courts can contribute to problems I don't think we know enough in this case to draw that conclusion.

Pretty much the exact opposite of the way Poirot has chosen to represent my position. Not the first time she has used that tactic either, I guess there is a hope there that others won't go back and rerad what was actually said. Useful for point scoring, not so good for honest contributions to a discussion.

R0bert