That has to be GOOD NEWS.!!  ( I hope) 

not sure what is  happening here..  so I'll post away..  perhaps it'll unblock the logjam..


histrionic and discursive are other words given in an assessment of me by another.

How TRUE.!! 

.... hey I welcome them all...
.
we speak and say much more than we realise.........

You're on a roll, Emma! ~ and I don't mean you're a frankfurter! 

In my own area I have noticed a much higher reporting and actioning of DVO's.

t seems Enforcement it finally taking crimes against women and children a bit more seriously.  But.. we hear of males (mainly)  being arrested for breaching DVO's  daily..  we never hear the outcomes...  which leaves me to wonder..

now Police are lifting their game .. wonder of wonders.... 

but what happens in the Courts..?

The final outcome of the RH case will be VERY INTERESTING.!!

cods wrote on Jun 30^th, 2014 at 11:12am:


Now now - Rolfie might not like that.... but off with his head!

Kegs ...  I can see it from both sides ...
DVO's are an imperfect solution... as to whether they are  in themselves, lawful or not ..  I have not had cause to research..  so I cannot comment on that.

However...  from personal experience....   ??  DVO's are pretty worthless..  and I am speaking about worthless in doing what they are supposed to do......   

mostly they are ignored,, and the women and/or children are NOT afforded protection from violent partners, as intended.
Hence the frequent breaches.

Why Have them at all?? 
A question.. yeah.

Now I see your position comes from another place.....

These are MY words   
What I take from your post...

You object to them altogether... as an inappropriate, unwarranted,  unwanted and illegal infringement  of personal freedom and the sanctity of marriage..?? 

Uh  sorry.. perhaps I'll read your post again..

OK SO  you say


"Substituting the possibility of violence with official violence will never be an answer and will only exacerbate the violence in society."

SEE  I have a problem with this....   Here, anyway,  DVO's are sought,  often only by the Police, AFTER  VIOLENCE has happened. 
So..it isn't what you say.....  replacing possible violence... 
it is trying to prevent FURTHER violence....

Whatever you may feel about society imposing itself on family relationships,, it is undeniably a part of our culture..has been for a long time.. for better or for worse.

Often we see reports of women and/or children being murdered.. AFTER these DVO - type legal instruments are issued.....,  As YOU point out..

can you suggest a better alternative..?

Unfortunately, Emma - what actually makes AVOs etc in isolation illegal is that NO violence has occurred - i.e no offence has taken place and thus the sanction of the courts is illegal and is nothing more or less than State violence itself.

In the absence of any properly proven charge of violence.. as I've stated elsewhere and here (I think).... an AVO or DVO is in and of itself proof positive that NO act of violence has taken place.  These are only in place to PREVENT violence - and thus are themselves an abrogation of the rule of Law that requires that ONLY an offence may be actioned by the courts.

Such things are deeply offensive to any person caught up in them, theya re often abused for petty personal advantage, there are ALWAYS two ways about such things, the 'definition' of 'vioilence' is patently absurd and incorporates any complaint at all (these things were NOT set in place to 'protect' anyone - they were set in place to permit the state to steal legally owned and licensed firearms in the community - hence the zero requirement for any proof at all -they were and remain an end run around democracy - and are thus an offence again) and as I've said previously, the occasional dire outcomes have always followed the imposition of such an order - which leads me to ponder how much of an effect that imposition has had on the final result.

Had the 'order' NOT been imposed without proper reason - perhaps the ultimate sanction applied by the recipient of that order would not have responded so extremely.

Reading 'Intervention and Revolution' (Richard K Barnet, World Traveler Books), shows that the primary motivator for revolt and insurrection is... INSULT.   It is not a far cry to understand that INSULT of placing an unwarranted order against a person will result in that person responding with anger - and the consequences are or can be incalculable.

“The use of force is a last resort. One aspect of violence is that it is unpredictable. Although your initial intention may be to use limited force, once you have engaged in violence the consequences are unpredictable. Violence always brings about unexpected results and almost always provokes retaliation.”
- Dalai Lama

Using the force (i.e. violence) of the courts without warrant leads to this situation.  Thus it is incumbent upon those same courts, the police and legislators to take proper reading of these situations ... lest they themselves are guilty of unwarranted violence.

My personal reading of this is that these 'laws' are the spearpoint of government striving for total control over the individual, but that is another long story.