Murdered by my boyfriend

[dawaxman]

It's not an issue isolated to England, that's for sure. A women is killed every week in Australia by "domestic" violence (such a ****ty term for it.)

I'm not sure how someone could commit such despicable acts to someone though supposedly love (talking about abuse, not murder). But it's something they can do in private, then hang out with their mates like nothing's happened. I've firmly got behind the White Ribbon campaign - it's men making it known that you won't stand for it. I think one of the best ways to combat it is by shaming other men, which is quite sad in itself.

I've not heard of the white ribbon campaign.. .assume it's an Australian thing?

 

[spitshine]

This is a good article to read about "the monster myth" - that is, the majority of violence against women is committed by a stranger on the street. This was actually written by a man whose wife was raped and murdered by a stranger on the street in Melbourne 2 years ago.

He's Tom Meagher - quite an incredible person in my opinion.

http://whiteribbonblog.com/2014/04/17/the-danger-of-the-monster-myth/

Cant read article, I s it saying most violence is committed by an unknown assailant? Murder by a complete stranger are rare crimes and always have been n my opinion.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

Don't apologise. It's not your fault angry little men keep derailing threads in random with all this tedious left/right bull****. Domestic violence is an incredibly serious issue. To bring politics or whatever ****y philosophy into it is quite frankly ridiculous.

I feel very sad for these people. 'My party is better than your party' etc. Bore off.

Hahaha bore off yourself Zorro.......

Why not bring politics into this argument, politicians determine what happens to these people, most of them have re-offended in the past and will continue to re-offend in the future. The trouble with this board is that when anyone has a voice against nimbyism or the left they will get hounded by the usual suspects. They never answer any of the questions/points put forward with any rationale, only that they're right and end of argument.......

btw i don't have a party, so try work that one out and i'm the happiest person you could ever meet, i ****in love life and all the opportunities its brought and will continue to bring. I have a dislike for those that won't stand on their own too feet and accept that you have to work hard to make something of yourself or aren't accountable for their actions........ Work hard, get to play hard, life is one big rock and roll party maaaaaan \o/

Speaking of which i played to 70,000 people in Hyde park....... i didn't have to hide behind a gimp mask, guess that makes me a bigger man than some eh? move along titch

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

It's not an issue isolated to England, that's for sure. A women is killed every week in Australia by "domestic" violence (such a ****ty term for it.)

I'm not sure how someone could commit such despicable acts to someone though supposedly love (talking about abuse, not murder). But it's something they can do in private, then hang out with their mates like nothing's happened. I've firmly got behind the White Ribbon campaign - it's men making it known that you won't stand for it. I think one of the best ways to combat it is by shaming other men, which is quite sad in itself.

My partner left her ex because he used to beat her and scream and shout at her, he's 6 foot 7, she's only about 5 and half feet and slightly built, she was lucky she had the strength to get out of there, not many do.

I used to do some work at a clients office where the Ops Manager was seeing the secretary/pa...... It was well known that he was knocking her about, she'd turn up with black eyes etc, yet everyone just accepted it, people talked about it, yet nothing was done. Why should these people be allowed to go on inflicting hurt and damage on the weak and vulnerable, something should be done, but what if everyone turns a blind eye when its happening in front of them.

From this thread there appear to be 2 arguments one is that those committing crime should be given a chance/chances the other that they had their chance before they did what they did. I've asked this question to Braineclipse which didn't get an answer, but if something bad happened to one of his family/loved ones and it was by a repeat offender, how would he feel, would that make him change his mind or would he still feel sorry for the attacker?

I just find it difficult to come down on the side of the perpetrator, or find an argument to support giving them chance after chance. We all have choices to make in life, we all have our own brain, we should all be responsible for our actions and the consequences of those actions. It's my natural instant to want to protect the victim or those that are decent people.

 

[scaramanga]

I think up until this part of your post we more or less agree, or just disagree on stuff that's not all that important.

Disagree that it's easy to identify a re-offender. As has been showed with the (at times) poor implementation of the 3 strikes rule in the US.

What exactly is it the evidence suggests here? To me it seems that the evidence clearly suggests that some methods of rehabilitation works a lot better than others. There will be cases of persistent offenders, but identifying them at an early stage will be difficult.

With my limited knowledge of the US 3 strikes system, my belief was that it was political issues that caused the failure rather than an inability to recognise repeat offenders. As I understand it, US attorneys are (if not overtly political themselves) often tools in the political machinery. This led to pressure for them to apply legislation that was meant to stop serious, damage-causing crime to minor misdemeanours like possession of drugs (without intent) and prostitution.

Another issue with the reporting of that system is that it seems to have become a figurehead for attack from the US left wing. So there are plenty of reports of people being imprisoned for long periods because of a fairly innocuous crime with the underlying theme of the article being "How could we lock up a man for life for stealing some socks" but ignoring the fact that he'd committed two crimes in the past to get to that stage. It also ignores the fact that everyone who has committed those two crimes is in possession of the knowledge that another one will lead to long-term imprisonment - that's their choice. I don't believe it was correct to retrospectively count the first one or two crimes though.

A fair criticism of the system (and, I believe, the US prison system in general) is the disproportionate number of mentally ill and homeless that get caught up by it. In my eyes though, that's not a failure of the three strikes system, that's a failure of the already existing provision for identifying and treating those with mental illness.

As far as the evidence is concerned, we have repeat offenders and we have a system of rehabilitation in place. I'd say that means that in some cases, the rehabilitation isn't working. Until or unless the rehabilitation is improved, those people need to be kept away from society. In the UK we are currently in the process of privatising the rehabilitation system with incentives for time spent without reoffending. I suspect this will tell us whether our attempts at rehabilitation so far are ineffective because of the methods or the application - I fully expect the private sector with incentives for performance to do just about anything better than a govt organisation.

I don't believe that as a society we are obliged to rehabilitate. I think that we are obliged to try - that certainly makes us a 'better' society - but I don't think that the answer to failed rehabilitation is to allow that person back on the streets to commit more crime.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

With my limited knowledge of the US 3 strikes system, my belief was that it was political issues that caused the failure rather than an inability to recognise repeat offenders. As I understand it, US attorneys are (if not overtly political themselves) often tools in the political machinery. This led to pressure for them to apply legislation that was meant to stop serious, damage-causing crime to minor misdemeanours like possession of drugs (without intent) and prostitution.

Another issue with the reporting of that system is that it seems to have become a figurehead for attack from the US left wing. So there are plenty of reports of people being imprisoned for long periods because of a fairly innocuous crime with the underlying theme of the article being "How could we lock up a man for life for stealing some socks" but ignoring the fact that he'd committed two crimes in the past to get to that stage. It also ignores the fact that everyone who has committed those two crimes is in possession of the knowledge that another one will lead to long-term imprisonment - that's their choice. I don't believe it was correct to retrospectively count the first one or two crimes though.

A fair criticism of the system (and, I believe, the US prison system in general) is the disproportionate number of mentally ill and homeless that get caught up by it. In my eyes though, that's not a failure of the three strikes system, that's a failure of the already existing provision for identifying and treating those with mental illness.

As far as the evidence is concerned, we have repeat offenders and we have a system of rehabilitation in place. I'd say that means that in some cases, the rehabilitation isn't working. Until or unless the rehabilitation is improved, those people need to be kept away from society. In the UK we are currently in the process of privatising the rehabilitation system with incentives for time spent without reoffending. I suspect this will tell us whether our attempts at rehabilitation so far are ineffective because of the methods or the application - I fully expect the private sector with incentives for performance to do just about anything better than a govt organisation.

I don't believe that as a society we are obliged to rehabilitate. I think that we are obliged to try - that certainly makes us a 'better' society - but I don't think that the answer to failed rehabilitation is to allow that person back on the streets to commit more crime.

=D>

 

[scaramanga]

Not uncommon among Liberal Nimbies and the **** end of the Left......

As for pulling me up on my pronunciation and spelling....... hahaha always throw stones then call an end to the argument when you're losing and can't see a way out.....typical Lefty .....


ciao comrade

I think maybe you should tone down the argument here. Whilst this has mostly been an interesting debate, it's beginning to verge on the personal.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't describe BE as a lefty.

 

[AuroRaman]

Hahaha bore off yourself Zorro.......

Why not bring politics into this argument, politicians determine what happens to these people, most of them have re-offended in the past and will continue to re-offend in the future. The trouble with this board is that when anyone has a voice against nimbyism or the left they will get hounded by the usual suspects. They never answer any of the questions/points put forward with any rationale, only that they're right and end of argument.......

btw i don't have a party, so try work that one out and i'm the happiest person you could ever meet, i ****in love life and all the opportunities its brought and will continue to bring. I have a dislike for those that won't stand on their own too feet and accept that you have to work hard to make something of yourself or aren't accountable for their actions........ Work hard, get to play hard, life is one big rock and roll party maaaaaan \o/

Speaking of which i played to 70,000 people in Hyde park....... i didn't have to hide behind a gimp mask, guess that makes me a bigger man than some eh? move along titch

Touch a nerve there Gorgeous?

Your first paragraph - I can't really comment on that, to be honest I gloss over when the left/right arguments start on here, because it happens in threads that just don't require that argument to be brought up. But I don't agree that this thread needed to start off from the second post as one against a particular type of political/social view. You went in all guns blazing from your first post and have then proceeded to do what you say these 'left/liberal' people do, which is tantamount to internet cajoling and bullying, then attempting to belittle and name-calling. As someone who considers themselves neutral and non-aligned when these sorts of discussions take place, it is you that has been the instigator not for debate, but for a junkyard fight.

Second paragraph - You clearly feel that my original post was in reference to purely you. That is not the case and surely you can agree that there are posters on here who align themselves strongly to a political party. This is not an issue for me at all and I enjoy reading healthy debates between the likes of Scara and Paxton as an example. The rest of the paragraph; Rock on brother! That is exactly how I try to live my life and I am in full on agreement with you.

Third paragraph - mate, that is amazing!! Do you mind me asking what day you were playing on (I won't do the obvious and ask outright who you play with!) As you are clearly aware from what you have posted, I am a struggling to find a way to make music a full-living now I am back in the UK, so massive props to you for such an achievement. Two weeks ago, I played a gig in front of about 30 people, at least half of which were completely disinterested. I do find it interesting that you make an assertion about being the 'bigger man' by belittling my apparent lack of achievement compared to yours and then calling me a name. If that is what makes you the happiest person then by all means carry on.

 

[braineclipse]

My partner left her ex because he used to beat her and scream and shout at her, he's 6 foot 7, she's only about 5 and half feet and slightly built, she was lucky she had the strength to get out of there, not many do.

I used to do some work at a clients office where the Ops Manager was seeing the secretary/pa...... It was well known that he was knocking her about, she'd turn up with black eyes etc, yet everyone just accepted it, people talked about it, yet nothing was done. Why should these people be allowed to go on inflicting hurt and damage on the weak and vulnerable, something should be done, but what if everyone turns a blind eye when its happening in front of them.

From this thread there appear to be 2 arguments one is that those committing crime should be given a chance/chances the other that they had their chance before they did what they did. I've asked this question to Braineclipse which didn't get an answer, but if something bad happened to one of his family/loved ones and it was by a repeat offender, how would he feel, would that make him change his mind or would he still feel sorry for the attacker?

I just find it difficult to come down on the side of the perpetrator, or find an argument to support giving them chance after chance. We all have choices to make in life, we all have our own brain, we should all be responsible for our actions and the consequences of those actions. It's my natural instant to want to protect the victim or those that are decent people.

I see ciao comrade doesn't actually mean end of discussion for you.

Just to repeat myself, if you genuinely want to continue this feel free to start another thread.

With my limited knowledge of the US 3 strikes system, my belief was that it was political issues that caused the failure rather than an inability to recognise repeat offenders. As I understand it, US attorneys are (if not overtly political themselves) often tools in the political machinery. This led to pressure for them to apply legislation that was meant to stop serious, damage-causing crime to minor misdemeanours like possession of drugs (without intent) and prostitution.

Another issue with the reporting of that system is that it seems to have become a figurehead for attack from the US left wing. So there are plenty of reports of people being imprisoned for long periods because of a fairly innocuous crime with the underlying theme of the article being "How could we lock up a man for life for stealing some socks" but ignoring the fact that he'd committed two crimes in the past to get to that stage. It also ignores the fact that everyone who has committed those two crimes is in possession of the knowledge that another one will lead to long-term imprisonment - that's their choice. I don't believe it was correct to retrospectively count the first one or two crimes though.

A fair criticism of the system (and, I believe, the US prison system in general) is the disproportionate number of mentally ill and homeless that get caught up by it. In my eyes though, that's not a failure of the three strikes system, that's a failure of the already existing provision for identifying and treating those with mental illness.

As far as the evidence is concerned, we have repeat offenders and we have a system of rehabilitation in place. I'd say that means that in some cases, the rehabilitation isn't working. Until or unless the rehabilitation is improved, those people need to be kept away from society. In the UK we are currently in the process of privatising the rehabilitation system with incentives for time spent without reoffending. I suspect this will tell us whether our attempts at rehabilitation so far are ineffective because of the methods or the application - I fully expect the private sector with incentives for performance to do just about anything better than a govt organisation.

I don't believe that as a society we are obliged to rehabilitate. I think that we are obliged to try - that certainly makes us a 'better' society - but I don't think that the answer to failed rehabilitation is to allow that person back on the streets to commit more crime.

On a lot of points I think we agree. As always you argue your case well.

Didn't know about your new plan of privatizing rehabilitation, certainly interesting. And for me something that should be explored a lot sooner than "3 strikes, lock them up". For me to be able to accept something like that it must be because all other avenues have been explored and researched. I also think a lot of work should be put into proactive work for this kind of stuff. We know a lot now about the risk factors, but attempts to help kids and young people exposed to those risk factors are not good enough.

I have a real issue with a society looking at a rather large group of young people, knowing that they're in a high risk group for becoming criminals and/or developing mental disorders that can manifest themselves in a violent/criminal way then doing less than stellar rehabilitation work when inevitably this happens for a relatively large percentage of those people before locking those people up and throwing away the key.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't describe BE as a lefty.

Cheers, I think

 

[Superted]

I apologize for my part in taking your excellent and well intentioned thread off topic.

This is clearly a topic large enough for several threads and shouldn't be derailed on the first page of a single thread.

I don't agree that it's been derailed. Those who instigate domestic violence are criminals. Some people think after they've given their wife a black eye, they should be given a chance to give her another one.

 

[scaramanga]

I see ciao comrade doesn't actually mean end of discussion for you.

Just to repeat myself, if you genuinely want to continue this feel free to start another thread.



On a lot of points I think we agree. As always you argue your case well.

Didn't know about your new plan of privatizing rehabilitation, certainly interesting. And for me something that should be explored a lot sooner than "3 strikes, lock them up". For me to be able to accept something like that it must be because all other avenues have been explored and researched. I also think a lot of work should be put into proactive work for this kind of stuff. We know a lot now about the risk factors, but attempts to help kids and young people exposed to those risk factors are not good enough.

I have a real issue with a society looking at a rather large group of young people, knowing that they're in a high risk group for becoming criminals and/or developing mental disorders that can manifest themselves in a violent/criminal way then doing less than stellar rehabilitation work when inevitably this happens for a relatively large percentage of those people before locking those people up and throwing away the key.

I think, as per usual, we've quickly come to a fairly close middle ground. I agree with all of that and, as I mentioned before, I think that we do need to try everything we can to avoid/rehabilitate first. I suspect the amount of trying we feel the need to do will always differ between us.

There's a little more info on the changes here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-reoffending-and-improving-rehabilitation

Cheers, I think

Just because I don't think you're a lefty, doesn't mean I don't think you're one of those snow botherers. You do seem to have a slight tilt towards the left in that part of the world

 

[Superted]

How do you make the decision on who can and can't be rehabilitated? What's a reasonable line in the sand for you?

Rehabilitation is not only a factor in limited circumstances, it's a factor in most circumstances for most people.

Probation is a good start. Strict probation. But it needs both sides to work.

Criminal - you won't mix with these peoples, live in a new area, check into counseling, stay away from alcohol and drugs.

Society's part - give them a job, give them a mentor in the community, get them involved.

I believe for petty criminals, a lot of it comes from boredom. Give them something to do, something to he proud of.

Part of probation should be rehabilitating then back into the community. They can't do it by themselves.

 

[braineclipse]

I don't agree that it's been derailed. Those who instigate domestic violence are criminals. Some people think after they've given their wife a black eye, they should be given a chance to give her another one.

Yes, in that sense it's relevant. But the name calling and talking about pedophiles I don't think is.

Any suggestions for what should happen to make sure he wouldn't ever get a chance to give her another one?

I think, as per usual, we've quickly come to a fairly close middle ground. I agree with all of that and, as I mentioned before, I think that we do need to try everything we can to avoid/rehabilitate first. I suspect the amount of trying we feel the need to do will always differ between us.

There's a little more info on the changes here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/reducing-reoffending-and-improving-rehabilitation



Just because I don't think you're a lefty, doesn't mean I don't think you're one of those snow botherers. You do seem to have a slight tilt towards the left in that part of the world

I suspect the same

Cheers, looks promising. As long as funding isn't continually cut back this could be very interesting. Should be a huge area of interest and research and getting the private sector more involved seems like a good idea, having good metrics and a performance based payment system for providers seems well thought out. Work and training in prisons along with counseling during a re-integration process and a focus on drub dependence seems very good too.

I wonder if there's some new age theory about that tilt towards the left having something to do with the more acute way we experience the tilt of the earth and the resonance frequencies that causes in the energy flow or something like that...

 

[Superted]

Well the basic problem with domestic violence cases is that so many go unreported. I'm not going to begin to speculate why that is, all I could come up with are generalizations.

But what can you do when a woman feels so helpless. That's why punishment should fit the crime or to be more precise, the victim.

 

[Superted]

Cant read article, I s it saying most violence is committed by an unknown assailant? Murder by a complete stranger are rare crimes and always have been n my opinion.

Complete opposite. The myth that the archetype abuser is some monster with a bad upbringing who is clearly different to you and I. When in actual reality, men who are violent against women are no different to regular folk.

There's a stat. 1 in 5 of us know a "mate" who hits their wife. I don't. (I don't have any mates?) but I've heard stories of friends of friends of friends.

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

Come on mate you called me a little man and told me to bore off, it it doesn't interest you what i'm posting don't read it. Certainly don't get all upset and play the victim when i come back at you, that was just me standing up for myself.

I apologise if it came across as me belittling you, that in no way was my intention. You should know from any of my posts that i respect anyone that's trying to better themselves or make something of themselves and respect to you with your music, i watched the vid you posted and it was quality, not my type of music, but you were very good. btw I actually thought you'd given it up to concentrate on your filming career. With the music, the advice i would give is to not give up, decide your niche and stick with it, more than anything though never lose your edge. The mask thing came across as ridiculous but i can see you were looking for something that set you apart, got you noticed. Why a mask though, why not your music. If your playing to an audience and they're not interested then come up with something that makes them listen, work on your vocals, if you sound like any other singer out there, change your style, look at someone like Amy Winehouse, what a voice she made people sit up and listen, but she had an image and lifestyle that crossed over from the hipsters to the norm..... You know i saw her years before she was famous playing the barfly in Camden, i was filming a name band there i was friends with at the time, the support was a guy playing Johnny Rebel Yankee style big bass drum (the type strapped on front) and she was singing/shouting along in a Yankee civil war style.... surreal, but she looked different event then, although not the same image she had later.

It was my opinion that there is a reason why things things like what dawaxman highlighted are becoming more prevalent and in the end it comes down to politics it gets dealt with. Do i think things got worse in the last Government - 'Yes', do i think they have got better in this one - 'Not really'. I do get a bit carried away attacking the left, but you know its not really the Left ideology i'm attacking though, its the fact that they never answer a question with a straight answer and its always someone else's fault, i also dislike jealousy and envy. I could post many if not more arguments about the right, but there's no one left on this board to take the fight to....... I've said it before there has to be another way and one day there will be i'm sure..... **** politics everyone should be put on prozac and learn to just smile and be happy.

One thing i've learnt coming on this board (and having been a lurker since the days of we8cambell and Jeff Jackson) is you have to stand your ground otherwise you'll be hounded off here. How many great posters have gone because their thoughts or ideology didn't meet the requirements of some.

Peace and Love from someone who see's the world as one.


btw i play guitar and sing, it was an o2 wireless festival

 

[RomanzoCriminale]

Any suggestions for what should happen to make sure he wouldn't ever get a chance to give her another one?

:-k

 

[AuroRaman]

Well the basic problem with domestic violence cases is that so many go unreported. I'm not going to begin to speculate why that is, all I could come up with are generalizations.

But what can you do when a woman feels so helpless. That's why punishment should fit the crime or to be more precise, the victim.

Pretty much the tickle my balls with a feather there.

ST you're in OZ right? When I lived there and NZ, I found that domestic violence was a more common occurrence than here in the UK. In NZ for example, there is a massive problem within pockets of the Islander community who look at domestic violence in a worryingly blasé manner. When I visited Pacific Islands it was actually quite shocking to see huge billboards with slogans trying to educate men that it isn't ok to hit their partners. One thing I found in both countries (and forgive me if I am also generalising here) was that alcohol/substance abuse played a large part in domestic violence, and also an air in some cases of it being 'just a thing that blokes sometimes do to keep women in their place' (not as prevalent). This in turn generates an environment where the woman also feels that it is 'just something that happens'. Especially Islander women, whom you would see with bruises and cuts on their faces and body in the street.

In my opinion UK women seem to be more open about physical abuse than other parts of the world, although sadly there are still plenty of cases of unreported violence within family environments. I don't personally ever remember having to be 'educated' about not hitting women from childhood, it was just kind of there as a given? Hence we are shocked when we hear reports of the level of physical violence on women and children in Asian communities, as one example, much of which is very sadly unreported. Whenever I go back to India it shocks me that there still isn't a mass-level of understanding that hurting your partner and children is unacceptable. I think I may have been too general in this post but hopefully you get what I mean.

 

[scaramanga]

How many great posters have gone because their thoughts or ideology didn't meet the requirements of some.

None to my knowledge. Plenty from both the left and right have got bored of arguing and left. Some got out of hand and got banned - nobody's been forced to leave because of their opinions. Don't forget, your opinions are more aligned to mine than they are the left and this is my site. If I don't ban people for opinions I disagree with, why would I ban people for opinions I agree with?

btw i play guitar and sing, it was an o2 wireless festival

Are you Ellie Goulding?

 

[tommysvr]

I've not heard of the white ribbon campaign.. .assume it's an Australian thing?

I'm not sure actually. It's definitely running in Ireland (which is where Tom Meagher is now living and the article is from), but not sure about the UK. Incidentally, tonight is White Ribbon Night in Australia.

One of the major frustrations for me is all the people who say "yeah but violence happens to men too." Absolutely it does...but the statistics are so heavily weighted towards women being the victim that something has to be done. Supporting White Ribbon and the like does NOT equal supporting violence against men. I'm not sure where people get that idea.

Cant read article, I s it saying most violence is committed by an unknown assailant? Murder by a complete stranger are rare crimes and always have been n my opinion.

Sorry, I didn't make it clear when I posted. But as SuperTed pointed it, it's actually saying the opposite (what you said.) The Monster Myth is just that - a myth. The majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men like you and me. That's a very uncomfortable thought for society, especially the men who run the world, so the idea that it is caused by delinquents who stalk women at night is perpetuated throughout society.