A man can't walk away from his child being placed in harm's way by an irresponsible drunk. If that is 'creating a situation' and absolving the drunks from 'creating a situation' - where does reason stand in all of this?

The courts really need to wake up and start administering justice and not prejudice.

oh I remember, there was a child involved.  That makes it harder. fezz wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 8:39pm:




I would have expected the Police to breathalyse the drunken friend, who was in charge of the vehicle.
That should have been the end of it.  Why didn't they, if the women were so obviously drunk.?


I wonder Fezz, if you have been told the truth by your son.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:36pm:




I wasn;t talking about you specifically Grap, although you and i could dance a few rounds on this.

I'm talking about the thrust of the thread.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:40pm:



And what do we say about what women are saying Grap?

yes Mothra. Because it really isn't complicated is it.?

People marry, or become partners for many reasons.. and what every relationship needs to be successful, is mutual respect.

I have learned the hard way, that without that, there is no genuine relationship.

No mutual support,  no comfort in hard times. Back to the blame game again.

Until men respect women; until women are paid with equity; until people are treated as equal, and not 'classed' in some way or the other,  the foulness of Domestic Violence will continue.

And the reality is... the power has always been in the hands of men. So the bulk of the onus rests on MEN.

That is undeniable, even by you Scooter.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 26^th, 2015 at 11:47pm:


Yeah I like Judge John Deed  too.  And you know what Grappler..?  I very much doubt he would have any similar ground with you.  You and he would NOT be on all four paws. ( see My hi-light above of your words)

You seem to be saying that no validity attaches to DV orders, or police intervention in cases of domestic violence,  because...????

all women are liars..?  all cases are suspect because a woman says something?

Judge Deed lives in the real (TV) world, unlike yourself, by your own offerings.

Emma wrote on Nov 27^th, 2015 at 12:00am:


I do not SEEM to be saying there is no validity in law for 'domestic violence orders' - I am saying categorically that no court in this land has any right to impose a sanction on any person not found guilty of a genuine offence.

There is no validity for police over-reaction - and remember I've cited already that in over 300,000 callouts to NSW Police in 2011, only 5000 charges were laid, many of which would likely be 'usual suspect' charges such as 'resist arrest' (you can't resist arrest if you are not  being arrested for a genuine offence), 'assault police' with no harm to said police... etc, etc - and said police can only act in the event of a genuine offence, and not on some emotion based allegation.

The end run around the Rule of Law that is the reality of 'domestic violence orders', is nothing more than that - an end run around the Rule of Law and deliberately designed to offer to the instruments of the state some unearned right to attack an individual on an ideological basis.

Unless and until  a genuine offence supported by provable evidence  - to the proper standard of Law - has been committed - the instruments of the State have no right to impose legal sanction on an individual.

It is not merely sufficient to assert something - in Law it must be proven to the proper standard, and thus 'domestic violence orders' fail the test of Law.

Even on the 'balance of probabilities' there is still a requirement for proof that will indicate some genuine concern. It cannot simply be open-ended to suit an ideology.

That was the province of the NAZIs and the Stalinists, and of every violent and oppressive State in history...