legalbeagle

I shall leave you with a nice little pic for our troll. I think we've done this one to death.

Oh it's Ok Otta. I know what he's like. It's not the first time and I'm sure it won't be the last. I suppose that there are some subjects I struggle to tolerate trolling on. We all have a weakness?!

It doesn't just focus on women and girls all of the time. That particular strategy did, for the reasons I have already been through.

"Lovely theory" - not a BIT patronising........ Not for the first time, we will have to agree to disagree. I don't imagine that either of us are going to persuade the other.

Because here's what happens: We study a subject. Let's take domestic violence. We look at ALL the victims. We quickly establish that there are distinct reasons for it happening to distinct groups (and that the overwhelming majority of cases happens to one particular group.) We move on to study each group and the particular underlying causes that go with it.

Another yes vote for jouseph1987 - prompt, reasonably priced, polite and helpful. Have already recommended him to several friends.

No one predecided anything Loz. But we do not all cure everything all at once. Some are tackling the biggest problems first with limited resources. Others are looking at other issues. Why do you try to make everything about an underlying agenda?

The point Loz is one of cause and effect. If you want to reduce the incidence of anything, you have to look at its underlying cause. The underlying cause of violence against women is not the same as against men. This does not mean that you do not study violence against men. It does mean that studies about sexual violence against women are unlikely to translate to the opposite gender. That does not mean that we do not share learning. It does mean that there is great value in researching each group independently.

And there's no need to correct my stats either - they do vary from organisation to organisation. Refuge has it at one woman murdered every three days. The point being made is that it is more frequent with women than men.

Because the reason something happens to a man is not the same as the reason something happens to a woman. If you want to look at how to improve those statistics for women, you look at women as a group. Obviously.

I've worked with some transgender people before through a charity. One of the things ALL of the male to female people said was that when they became women, they were immediately treated as though they were less intelligent. In the UK, seven women a week are killed by partners or ex partners (and two men). Around 85,000 women a year are raped (and 9,000 men). One in five women in the UK will suffer some form of sexual violence. One is six women in the US will be the victim of an attempted or completed rape during their lifetime. "Revenge porn", "honour" killings, stalking, are almost exclusively done to women. Read the twitter streams of the women who asked for Jane Austen to be on a bank note, or who stood up for Ched Evans' victim or who complain about "revenge porn" or who simply utter the word "feminist" and then find me some men who have had that same level of abuse. Just a handful will do. Yes it happens to men, and nothing should detract from or belittle the suffering it causes them. But the simple fact is it happens to women in a far far greater scale. It depresses me beyond belief that we still have to protest this shit, and engage with "but it happens to men too!" as though that were some kind of answer.

Loz has told me before that he hates feminists. And since I identified myself as one (as do all of my friends, including the men), he seems to take joy in jumping on everything I say and parroting: "It happens to men too you know!" every time I appear on the forum and mention females. I'm all for debate. And equality (hence being a feminist.) But it IS a bit wearing. Sigh.

I'd be equally interested to see that study Loz. Doesn't invalidate this one though.

I signed a while ago....

It's a study in the US, not here. But still. Interesting approach to educating on this topic: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/01/lots-of-men-dont-think-rape-is-rape.html?mid=twitter_scienceofus

Abject apologies!

Agree re Prince Andrew........

Completely agree there's a great deal of hypocrisy about quids. I suspect part of the trouble is that people like Polanski effectively work for themselves and so are much harder to affect. With Evans, pressure can be brought to bear on an employer who is very affected by bad publicity and so may be inclined not to court that kind of controversy. Polanski, Woody Allen etc get away with it much more. Shouldn't, but do.

mugglesworth - When I realised this attitude I approached 8 well known local private schools. A few went through the appearance of considering my kids before rejecting them for a disability they already knew about. The others didn't even bother pretending. I'm glad you found a slightly more positive attitude.

Davis - and so you kill someone who killed someone (or at least their government did for which you hold them responsible) to prove that killing someone is wrong? Hmmmm..........

Nashoi the law on consent has actually already been explained, including referring readers to CPS Guidelines and academic papers. AM I understand your point. But it will not be a good defence to say "She was falling over drunk, but she said yes and I wasn't sober so I thought that would do because I wanted to get laid." In the same way you can't defend yourself from robbing or burgling or assaulting someone on the basis your judgement was impaired through alcohol.

Aquarius Moon - Of course he's guilty of rape in the scenario you describe. If she's so drunk she can hardly stand up? Wouldn't you wonder whether she knew what she was doing and whether she really agreed? Regardless of what she said? The law certainly says you should.

Sadly Jennys it's very common - I know kids removed for ASD, ADHD, Dyslexia.....nothing that would affect the schools "intelligence" test but they still remove/refuse them......

Jennys - I didn't want them in private school (long complicated back story) so was more than happy that they didn't go. It was the principle of what I was being told that infuriated me. These schools are charities originally created to educate children and they routinely bar some of the most vulnerable? Not MY definition of charity by a long chalk. As it happens my kids are at a brilliant, lovely, caring local state primary which they love, and with which I'm very happy. In fact one of the specialists who works with my son took the time to tell me that in the 12 years she has been going in to schools to assist kids like him she has never seen a school do better. So yes they, and I, are happy. And we are lucky to have to many great schools in the area too. But still. Forbidding a child to take an entrance test, or refusing them a place JUST because they are disabled? Insert muslim or black at the end of that sentence and you get my point....

"Complained" John? Are you referring to those brave enough to overcome their trauma of being raped and to deal with the hideous process of reporting it and having it prosecuted?