.

(Continued ...)

.

In response to your comment regarding “contributory negligence” on the part of the victim in relation to certain criminal acts, I agree that this could, indeed, occur in certain cases.

But, for any accusation of any sort to be proven, either the accused must be “caught red-handed” (e.g., by the police), or there must be irrefutable material evidence, or there must be at least one credible eye-witness, to the satisfaction of the court. This applies to both husband and wife, each in his or her role as accused or accuser.

The problem, of course, is that it almost inevitably boils down to a case of “my word against yours” – particularly in the case of man and wife in the intimacy of their own private bedroom behind closed doors.

This is frequently the case of rape and other forms of sexual assault between non-married couples and even between casual acquaintances and total strangers – which is why 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail in the United States. Indications are that the situation is no better in Australia or anywhere else in the world, despite the lack of reliable statistics.

“Innocent until proven guilty” is the very noble principle that underpins the concept of justice in all modern democracies. It constitutes an invincible barrier of legal protection for the innocent but, also, alas, for the guilty.
.

I agree with you completely on your example of the attitude of motor cyclists. In fact, it is just as true for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and even water-born vessels and aircraft.

My wife occasionally scolds me for my “sports-like” driving style (which I usually adopt when we’re running late for an appointment). On such occasions she never fails to remind me of the words of wisdom of the father of one of her boyfriends when she was a teenager : “ Road Rules are rules of politeness”.

"To avoid accidents, always be polite".

.

Banjo Paterson,

As the 'perfect neophyte', although from your posts I am sure you are being humble, it is worth reviewing the comments of RObert and ors on the very broad definition of violence used in the Victorian Government publication you linked to earlier. Also, it would be useful to critically examine the research from which the numbers are quoted.

While it might suit some advocates and a victim industry to have all men and boys in the frame as active and potential abusers of women, what it does is kowtow to the prevailing political correctness and hide from sight the real priorities for action, for example indigenous violence, and suck energy and resources away from coordinated efforts to research and address social problems that lead to violence.

Any violence is horrendous. It is not as simple as swearing all men not to hurt women,
http://www.thecitizen.org.au/features/what-about-men-lies-statistics-and-peddling-myths-about-violence-against-women

What I would personally like to see if violence is always to be categorised and addressed on the basis of the location of violence (eg in the 'home', in traffic 'road rage' etc), or by gender, (all unsatisfactory), is at least a move away from homogenising all 'DV' offenders (as men and prone to violence because of 'patriarchy'), when plainly there is heterogeneity among offenders. Some are serious assaulters and repeat, incorrigible offenders - who from other research that is being disregarded, are also implicated in other serious anti-social behaviour.

I will probably leave it at that. Posters like RObert are more knowledgeable and have a good understanding of the research and the limitations and as said earlier have posted often on the subject.

Banjo Paterson

"20th century : 49 attacks 148 dead 1,374 injured
21st century : 27 attacks 250 dead 890 injured"

So more dead in 16.33 years than an entire century!
Extrapolate that to the full 21st century and you get an estimated 1530 dead, 5450 injured.
Ten times the deaths of the 20th century, six times the injured.
Clearly the problem is getting worse.

So they're poor.
France has plenty of poor people who don't drive trucks into crowds.

The failure of "homegrown" minorities just emphasises why the utopian dream cannot work.

Has it occurred to you that their social failure is mostly the consequence of their own perspective?
How can they truly belong in an environment they view as "Satanic"?
Exclusion and failure are inevitable.

Dear Shocker,

Do they view their environment as Satanic?
Really? Where is your evidence for this. From what
I gather from Banjo Paterson's posts (he lives in
Paris) the problems there run deeper than religious
issues and are quite complex.

Foxy: Do they view their environment as Satanic? Really?

moslims in the EU expound that the West is Satanic every Day. Do you really live under a rock. Is it that you really don't want to see it? What do they say? "What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve over." So you if you don't see it never happened. Like seeing the really, really bad stuff for us Infidels in the koran.

Dear Jayb,

Not at all. I feel it is important before making
judgements to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other considerations.
Of course some people are more interested in
condemnation and punishment than in explanation.
Explanations seem tantamount to sympathizing and
excusing. People tend to think in terms of general
categories, if only to enable them to make sense of the
world by simplifying its complexity.

I love reading the posts of Banjo Paterson. He presents
such well reasoned points in his discussions - and his
living in Paris adds to his experience and knowledge
on what's happening in Europe.