Poirot, of cause I'm not suggesting that and the Batty case is an isolated, highly publicized case.

The fact is that there are many contributors to domestic violence, and provoking by x partners, or even partners is just one such cause.

For anybody interested in Poirot's recasting of my posts I'd suggest a look at what I actually wrote. I think the difference between what I wrote and the way Poirot is recasting it is pretty evident. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7050#216400
I disagreed with the approach being taken by Roscop although agreeing with what I take to be the more general point he had been trying to make.

It's quite possible for most of us to agree in some points of an issue while disagreeing with other parts of what's being said and seek to address that. Some may be determined to present an immovable solidarity behind an ideological position that does not allow for differences or degree's. I don't ever want to be like that and I respected what I think Roscop was saying enough to assume that my comments would be taken in that spirit.

EmperorJulian another aspect to the lock them away until they no longer present a threat is the same risk that goes with very strong penalties for other less than murder crimes. The temptation to finish what's been started. Get rid of the witnesses, to make sure that if you are likely to do life for what's already happened that the other party won't be around to enjoy your absence. That's not a piece of logic I much like but it does make an unpleasant sense. If the strongest penalties are being used for something other than murder then murder becomes an easier stretch for some.

R0bert

RObert,

We all know that you were attempting to agree with Roscop in a sweeping fashion on the generalised subject of DV.

Roscop had just finished regaling us with myriad reasons of why Greg Anderson was practically "goaded" into the action of slaughtering his son...you had obviously been following his posts.

Here's a recap of Roscop's posts:

"I would say more material to Luke Batty's death is the fact that Rosie Batty had been successful in obtaining a court order restricting Anderson to a humiliating presence at his sons weekend sporting events and little to no contact with his son over a seven week period..."

"Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son?..."

"......that the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?"

I realise you went in to make the point that he couldn't draw those conclusions on an individual case.

However, you appeared quite happy to reiterate his main thrust - in a conversation where we're dealing with the horrendous actions of Greg Anderson in the brutal murder of his son.

What I don't get is why you and Roscop were dancing around your general theme in regards to Anderson's crime....and that theme is that men are somehow "pushed" into things - in Anderson's case it was committing brutal and premeditated murder.

"When Batty dropped Luke off at cricket practice, Anderson was already there, having left his shared accommodation earlier in the day with all his belongings in a backpack, as well as a large knife."

"Ultimately, Anderson brought down the cricket bat over Luke’s head in a chopping motion, according to an eight-year-old witness, Ellyard said.

Anderson then retrieved the knife from his backpack and and stabbed Luke numerous times, including in the neck."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/20/inquest-to-determine-if-luke-battys-killing

Those are the actions of brutal and aggressive man - not someone we should be using to highlight the imitations of the system.

Poirot,

>"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.

Two comments:

1. Do we know what qualifications SC Topham has in assessing mental illness?

On YouTube there is a video recorded, according to the timestamp on it, about a year before the terrible murder took place. In that video it shows a police interview with SC Topham asking Anderson in a forceful tone questions Anderson believes he doesn't have to respond to. To me as a lay person, although Anderson looks somewhat intimidating mainly because of his size and demeanor, his behaviour does not look like that of a well balanced person.

2. A persons mental state is not necessarily constant. It can deteriorate over time and sometimes rapidly. If you read the range of the material out there in the public domain ie magazine and newspaper articles, Batty's book and coroners report etc, there seems to be only one conclusion that can be drawn and that is that Anderson's life was in a steep downward spiral. Does anyone have a different opinion?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZDXldjFPtA

Poirot,

You refer to this statement:

"Are you saying the restrictions and long period of no contact with his son had nothing to do with the state of Anderson's emotions and mind at the time he murdered his son?..."

"......that the restrictions unsettled the father to such an extent they drove him to murder their son and commit "suicide by cop"?"

(The last of the two quotes is taken out of context because it was preceded by a question.)

You then say to R0bert:

"I realise you went in to make the point that he couldn't draw those conclusions on an individual case."

I say why not?

This is what is said in a AWW article published earlier this year:

“At the end, Greg knew that Luke’s attitude to him was changing. He knew that Luke was starting to be embarrassed by his odd behaviour and he was starting to pull away from him”, says Rosie. Greg knew that I was winning. And so he killed Luke in a final act of victory. He won.”

And in the chronology accompanying the article this:

"February 8, 2014: Greg attends Luke's cricket match. Later that week, Greg phones to tell Luke he was ... upset that Luke had not contacted him on his return from the UK." (the words "Later that week..." do not make sense since according to my calendar "February 8, 2014" is the end of a week. Nonetheless that date is by my reckoning over 8 weeks after mother and son departed for the UK and only 4 days before the murder.)

So there you have it ...Rosie Batty's own words as published..."Greg knew I was winning". If Rosie Batty is not talking about the restrictions placed on Greg Anderson's access to his son, what on earth is she talking about?

So the basher lobby, desperate to forestall real curbs on perpetrators of domestic violence, is now entering new territory - blaming violent crime on LUNACY. Greg Anderson, poster boy for the most dogged defenders of domestic violence, was not shown to be a real criminal because the cop who witnessed his crime and described him as being in control of his actions wasn't a qualified psychobabbler.

It's been the victims that have "provoked it", it's been "the system", it's been "the nature of women", it's been "the nature of men", it's been Orwellian Newspeak assertions that violence isn't violence and non-violence is violence.

Yet the elephant remains stubbornly in the loungeroom. Violence is physical assault committed because violent criminals are free to do so.