- Dec 27, 2016
- 28,031
- 58,908
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Moderator
- #48
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
BL v StK · WB v FRE · RIC v HAW · ADE v SYD · NM v COL · GWS v PA ·
Read the wrap-up and post your "Liked, Learned, Hated" right here.
EUFA EURO 2024 - Group Stage ⚽ EPL 24/25 starts Aug 17
Yes it does make some good points but, as Waleed's lectures often do, in his claims to speak from a position of academic authority on any issue, he over-reaches and misses the point. imo.No fan of waleed aly but his article today in the age on the topic makes some good points imo.
We can generalize perpetrators. Men. I have no issue with this.
We can generalize victims. Women. I have no issue with this.
We can further generalize victims. Aboriginal Women. They are are up to 45% more likely to be victims. https://www.ombudsman.wa.gov.au/Pub...DVROs/FDVROs-6-Aboriginal-family-violence.pdf. I have no issue with this.
So how about we start further generalizing the perpetrators? Who are the people making Aboriginal women 45% more likely to be victims of DV?
We know so much about poor childhood leads to adult perpetrators.
But god forbid you take Indigenous boys out of bad homes.
So many of the people screaming the loudest about violence against women epidemic are the same people that would scream loudest about giving young boys from bad homes a better homelife opportunity. Yet thats a clear and reasonable solution to reduce this problem.
Where did I say bad Aboriginal boys? I said bad homes.And where are you going to put these 'bad' Aboriginal boys? How are you going to support them? How are you going to cease the second stolen generation?
Where did I say bad Aboriginal boys? I said bad homes.
I will leave it up to others to put in place the best (but realistic) support system we can in the situation. Regardless, need to risk some people calling it a second stolen generation if you want to try and help fix some of the rot that is going on. Pick your poison, a 'second stolen generation' or 45% higher rate of DV victims being Indigenous women (among countless other issues). The world isn't all sunshine and rainbows.
Hurting or killing a family pet is reported to be being built into NSW Police's redesigned Domestic Violence Safety Assessment Tool (DVSAT) tool.With that history including a charge of aggravated animal cruelty, I'd have felt there was a real danger in letting him out.
A woman was raped in a Minister’s office in Parliament House and it was hushed up.
There won’t be any meaningful political changes in this country.
They’re clueless.
Evidence of mandatory DV courses as part of Community Corrections Orders in NSW in the below article today and legals website.I can only speak for my area but there is a voluntary DV education program, but it is not mandated in court. I believe mandating these programs would be helpful.
A woman was raped in a Minister’s office in Parliament House and it was hushed up.
There won’t be any meaningful political changes in this country.
They’re clueless.
Hello BFew - I have been doing a bit of thinking about my "enhanced GPS enabled ankle bracelet tranquilliser delivery system" idea. My phone - an iPhone - has a feature where you it can go to a message if you receive a call when you are driving. So via GPS it can detect if you are driving vs walking. So, incorporate that and you'll have no collateral damage. Worst outcome is the perpetrator may fall off a pier and drown. They would of course receive education and instruction when said ankle bracelet is fitted as to what happens if they breach the exclusion zone of the AVO and what will happen to them if they do and what they should do if they are dumb enough to do it. They'd be told to sit down where it is safe to do so and assume the fetal position and the cops will come and pick you up soon.And after the tranquilliser is triggered, and they are in control of a vehicle when tranquillised (legally or illegally), and they crash and kill a car load of people and/or bystanders in the accident, or trigger a petrol station to explode by the crash fire, how are you going to explain that to the public and courts?
Astonishing, the conversation has turned to removing children from homes and family when Aboriginal women are mentioned and when it's the offender that should be removed.
Some posts have been deleted.
Hi Brian Oblivion, I hope you don’t mind me commenting here. It seems like you’re putting a lot of thought into coming up with a good preventative measure but I think there would be some liability if the perpetrator fell off a pier and drowned or as another scenario was maybe hit by a car (which could also cause injury to others.)Hello BFew - I have been doing a bit of thinking about my "enhanced GPS enabled ankle bracelet tranquilliser delivery system" idea. My phone - an iPhone - has a feature where you it can go to a message if you receive a call when you are driving. So via GPS it can detect if you are driving vs walking. So, incorporate that and you'll have no collateral damage. Worst outcome is the perpetrator may fall off a pier and drown. They would of course receive education and instruction when said ankle bracelet is fitted as to what happens if they breach the exclusion zone of the AVO and what will happen to them if they do and what they should do if they are dumb enough to do it. They'd be told to sit down where it is safe to do so and assume the fetal position and the cops will come and pick you up soon.
View attachment 1980001
Why would we want to be taking some drastic action over an 'epidemic' that has largely been invented given that Australian murder rates have been trending down for the last 30 years?Hi Brian Oblivion, I hope you don’t mind me commenting here. It seems like you’re putting a lot of thought into coming up with a good preventative measure but I think there would be some liability if the perpetrator fell off a pier and drowned or as another scenario was maybe hit by a car (which could also cause injury to others.)
An anklet bracelet would at least stop some perpetrators if the police are able to make it to the scene on time. Security cameras which can be linked to phones are often a part of a safety plan and can also be a preventive with the victim having fair warning and again if the police are able to make it to the scene on time.
I think what we’ve been discussing is the ‘trend’ in the increase of victims in the past four months, dying at the hands of perpetrators (from one per week to one every four days.) There’s no harm in talking about ways to stop or at least decrease this. Some current measures are effective but there’s always room for improvement.Why would we want to be taking some drastic action over an 'epidemic' that has largely been invented given that Australian murder rates have been trending down for the last 30 years?
In fact, we have almost halved instances of murder fron 800 to just over 400 in the last 20 years.
Its become almost hysterical the latest commentary from all sections of the media. We are actually doing good things. The trend is reducing. There is no 'crisis'. Why would we want to change an approach that seems to be working?
The vast majority of DV isn't murder. But you know that.Why would we want to be taking some drastic action over an 'epidemic' that has largely been invented given that Australian murder rates have been trending down for the last 30 years?
In fact, we have almost halved instances of murder fron 800 to just over 400 in the last 20 years.
Its become almost hysterical the latest commentary from all sections of the media. We are actually doing good things. The trend is reducing. There is no 'crisis'. Why would we want to change an approach that seems to be working?
A four month period over a thirty year sample size represents barely 1%. You can't break the glass based on such a small representation.I think what we’ve been discussing is the ‘trend’ in the increase of victims in the past four months, dying at the hands of perpetrators (from one per week to one every four days.) There’s no harm in talking about ways to stop or at least decrease this. Some current measures are effective but there’s always room for improvement.
Absolutely but all the recent noise has been about murders though.The vast majority of DV isn't murder. But you know that.
Actually, it hasn't all been about murder. But there has been a lot of discussion about murders of women by men because so many women have been murdered by men this year.Absolutely but all the recent noise has been about murders though.
The ‘small representation’ is someone’s child.A four month period over a thirty year sample size represents barely 1%. You can't break the glass based on such a small representation.
As an example, cigarette smoking rates have been steadily decreasing over the past 50 years. If we saw a small uptick in smokers from the period January 2024 to April 2024, do we suddenly start panicking?
These issues need sensible and data based thinking. Not irrational, panic driven and emotive decisions
The ‘small representation’ is someone’s child.
That’s what preventative action is about, assessing what is working and what can be improved. It’s a working progress.
The ‘small representation’ is someone’s child.
That’s what preventative action is about, assessing what is working and what can be improved. It’s a working progress.
The relevance was the reference to numbers.Well a murder victim is always someone’s child so I fail to see the relevance to be honest.
Yes, we are making progress. I’d rather people focus on what is working instead of throwing it all away based on what mathematically seems to be an outlier rather than a trend.
Making decisions based on emotion rarely works long term.
Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com
A lot of the issues arise because big spending government strategies rarely have targets or measurables against them. Rather its "Here's a bucket of money, spend it how you see fit."I took his point as being that what we're doing in many ways is and has been working.
The murder rate has dropped substantially over time, so whilst we are quite right to want to have a discussion about it, and see if there's more we can do, a lot of what we're doing has been right.
As the population increases we could even see more victims as a raw number but a decreasing rate. The target should of course, always be zero.
I agree, they need to be making sure the funding is well spent, being distributed where it’s needed the most.A lot of the issues arise because big spending government strategies rarely have targets or measurables against them. Rather its "Here's a bucket of money, spend it how you see fit."
On this issue, something like:
Drops 10% year on year over a period of 10 years - Keep doing what we are doing
Remains static - look at what is working well and what isn't.
Increases 10% - as above but maybe be more aggressive in looking at new solutions
Increases 20% - existing strategy not working.