Huguenot

The more I look at the data, the more plausible the massively diverging opinions on this thread become. If the finding that 6% of girls aged 16 to 24 in households with less than 10 grand income had been raped in the last year is right, then that means the average outside that demographic is vanishingly small. You'd have to assume that this high-incidence demographic group is itself segmented, and that there may well be particular clusters in it that are culturally and socially accustomed to violent conflict resolution and the degradation of women. That could account for DD's convictions. If that is the case, then plausibly it is the members of those communities who are in denial if they fail to recognise the source of, and the solution to their problems.

You'd be about 1.1 kilos heavier after two pints. But if you were holding the glasses when you first tested your weight, and then put the empties down afterwards, you'd be lighter. Most weighing machines aren't sensitive enough to measure just 1 kilo - even digital ones 'average' your weight over a few seconds because momentum from slight movements causes significant variation in your apparent weight. The 1 kilo may fall within this margin of error.

Oh, I don't know it's so black and white. I can't disagree that the government has utterly lost it's way of late, just as MM and Mockney Piers observe. I've always argued that a government can actually 'do' very little. The majority of the budget is tied up in social services, health, education and defence. None of these respond to short term (i.e 10 year) improvements because they're crippled by the unions and by bureaucracy. Nurses and Teachers got paid more, and a few more got employed. You could argue that deregulation in financial services wasn't well thought out, but that would be to ignore the larger picture. Globalisation, protectionist employment demands, and a lack of national resource put paid to manufacturing. There was nothing left but financial services. Any government would have come to the same conclusion. Financial restrictions would have brought the country to its knees ten years earlier, and the City could never have funded the nation. Other 'goverment' legislation was progressive - devolution and London's Mayor have all delivered more power back to the people. In the workplace, the national minimum wage was inspired, paternity leave was generous and you now get 24 days paid leave in full time employment. Environmental policy means we're now scoring better on rivers and beaches since pre-Industrial revolution, and fox hunting was banned. They saw the end of fur farming and greater restrictions on the testing of cosmetics on animals. Socially we saw the end of clause 28, a horrendous piece of fascist legislation which the Tories tried to enforce in the Lords. We saw the introduction of the equality and human rights commissions. Internationally we saw cancellation of penal levels of debt for poverty stricken countries, and a doubling of the international aid budget. Finally the ramifications of the Iraq war are impossible to discuss reasonably, because the majority of the nation is in denial about how utterly dependent we are on oil and how critical it was to alter the landscape of the Middle East to secure the viability of the UK. It is anathema to discuss the possibility that the UK went to war over resources for fear of inflaming global sentiment. In the end it was an exercise that had no realistic alternative outcome. If oil had hit $300 or $400 per barrel because of the posturing of dictators in the Middle East then the country could have become an industrial wasteland with no possible resolution in sight. We live in the UK at the expense of poverty in the rest of the world, because there simply isn't enough of everything to go round. They don't like it, and the UK will eventually pay the price. So who knows? But at the moment, yes Labour are prats, and so are the Tories. The whole lot of them are blundering around in the poverty of their own initiatives.

No RosieH, I didn't mean that ;-)

Well we seem to have found a working middle ground now annaj, so I can see it seems bizarre. However, if you need to know, I found it controversial because the website highlighted in the OP listed the UK's '1 in 10' figure alongside the rape and murder of women as an act of war and radical social gender oppression elsewhere in the world. There was what I regard as a deliberate attempt to conflate the issues in an inappropriate way that was dishonest and not a reasonable reflection of the society which I grew up in.

As a note on the '45%' domestic violence and sexual assault figure, the British Crime Survey defines this as any violence committed by a man against a woman that wasn't a rape. On that basis in the interests of balance it would be good to know the percentage of men who have suffered violence from women by the same definition. This isn't to suggest that the one cancels the other out, but merely to explore whether we have problems with a violent society or a case against men. It changes the solution you see....

Sorry it came across as that Moos, I was attempting to find a balancing argument to clarify that gender disagreements were not a one sided affair. Although the nature of the crimes may change, it appears that both sides demonstrate destructive intent. As I've said, I condemn violence in all forms. Incidentally, the British Crime Survey seems to reveal, as discussed before, that these crimes are usually experienced and perpetrated by 16 - 24 years in households with an income less than 10,000 a year. This seems to reveal rather less about gender inequality, than about a violent and regressive subculture operating outside the rules of society. It also discloses that the UK 'one in ten' issue has nothing whatever to do with the UN figures which talk about the violent cultural and religious subordination of women across all demographics in medieval societies. Again it makes me question the agenda of the campaign.

"you'll just have to trust me on this, out there across East Dulwich (and where ever else people post or read from) there will be women sitting with their hands posed over keyboard, hesitating, wondering whether to share there experience." I sympathise with each and every victim of violence, whatever gender they are. They deserve redress and support. However, I don't think that this forum is the place for leveling accusations, I think we have a legal system where these events can be considered by 12 reasonable people of both genders. I don't think that we should 'just have to trust [you or anyone] on this', that's not the way that a reasonable society works. Judge, jury and executioner on the basis of undisclosed knowledge? Ahem... I don't think that we should be casting vast unsubstantiated pools of unidentified victims into the debate as if they are a silent majority represented by the Illuminati. If these guys want help, support and a voice then they must take responsibility for it, otherwise they cannot be taken into account simply because it's not practical. You can't set up a justice system on behalf of ghost victims.

Vehement? I just pointed out that TCM and western medicines share a common base, and that TCM also has a lunatic fringe which means you shouldn't judge it as a single body of thought. I take chinese medicines over here, but never for clinical problems. Before I take anything for an illness I like to be confident that it has a background of success in double blind trials, and that I can manage side-effects.

Good old UN. I don't feel at all uncomfortable with knowing that men commit the larger amount of violent crime, they're also predominantly the victims. This is a given. I'm uncomfortable with issues of context and proportionality, and I'm also concerned that comments such as "you're a man, and as such..." reveal a willingness to make men as a gender responsible for the crimes of individuals. I'm uncomfortable that massaged figures (the number of victims who don't report crimes) are accepted as accurate and communicated so flippantly, but in such an unrepresentative way. I'm also concerned that these gender based assumptions overlook the collusion of women in such crimes. You may recall the woman who called her boyfriend in from a parked car to murder a Wimbledon shopper. I have no doubt that the woman would have committed the crime herself had she been physical enough, and that she enjoyed meeting out physical attacks using men as proxies. You may also be aware of the trial of Amanda Knox or the presence of women at Peckham 'parties'. These are society issues not gender issues. I reiterate my point, that these single issue campaigns are disingenuous, divisive and neither reflect nor are likely to solve the underlying problems.

To a degree DD. Many traditional Chinese medicines have the same approach as modern pharmaceuticals. They're often the same active ingredients, but in twig rather than tablet form. However, TCMs also include pathalogically stupid ideas such as bear bile and tiger penis.

Moos, I don't have a 'side' - and your suggestion that I do, or that other people have allied with it, demonstrates the problem. BN5 then responded to my suggestion that the issue isn't black and white by portraying me as someone who thinks that raping women in short skirts is okay. It goes without saying that this is an outrageous and untoward allegation and you're now right at the top of a newly created sh*tlist. LegalEagle then suggests that nearly all of her mates have been beaten by men with hot irons. Since we've made the assumption that it's not other women hitting these women, that nearly all men are doing it, and that anyone who says otherwise is a rapist (something women don't do) - you'll forgive me for interpreting this as an attack on men? This is the problem with single issue action groups. It's fu*cked up by the inability to be rational or reasonable, or gain any sense of perspective or context. They specifically try to polarise debate, which satisfies the firebrands, and gives everyone an enemy. These aren't issues specifically to do with gender (any more than the gay rights issues are), but they are to do with a society that has lost it's sense of responsibility to others. These problems are exaggerated by poverty, a lack of education, selfishness and a lack of social fulfilment. These crimes are about tribalism, about greed, about power. They're about small-minded quick-fisted people getting an upper hand, and a cowardly society doing nothing to redress the balance. They're not a gender issue, women are just as prone to bullying as men, and they won't be resolved by lunatics equating normal social challenges with violent rape. If you want to solve them, then you need to recreate a broader sense of community responsibility based on contribution and mutual maintenance, then these symptoms will go away.

I'm just looking at my Facebook list, and I can't believe that ten of my lady friends have been raped and/or are suffering domestic violence. I can definitely believe that at least ten of them have had blazing rows with pots, pans and vases flying. I can certainly imagine a couple of them getting involved in fisticuffs - at least two of them have slapped my cheeks for being cheeky. I can also believe that a few of both genders have been badgered into sexual encounters that some extremists would stick in the same category as hanging around in dark alleys with a kitchen knife. However, I couldn't characterise this as domestic violence. It's not Dirty Den or honour killings, or whatever else springs to mind to the 'one in ten' crowd. I could see this woman in a domestic violence situation, but I'm not prepared to accept that to be a gender issue that can be resolved with greater awareness or finger wagging at men in general.

Also, what happens if you take gender out of it? Nine in ten smaller people have been attacked by larger people at least once in their life. Nine in ten larger people have used physical intimidation or violence to get their own way at least once in their life. Maybe this is it, is there 'sexual' violence, or is there just bullying?

I just worry about the figures. One in ten women face violence, and then you trot out Rape Crisis figures. Men don't report violence, they just take the kicking. Is getting booted in the goolies sexual assault?

I demur... one in ten what?

No Rosie, your argument is wasted. This thread says 'One in Ten'. The thread takes a political angle that 'one in ten' is guilty of a crime. I appreciate your angle (and I love all of your posts), but you presume a percentage responsibility. It's outrageous, and unsustained. It is by definition polarised, and it excludes reasonable men.

I accept your point annaj, and I support it. As I suspect you know, I find no justification for violence and oppression by any means, against any target. Nevertheless, I find the 1 in 10 figure (10%) brutal, antagonistic and inaccurate. Men are not the enemy. There is a sub-group in any class that are responsible for 99% of most crimes, they're prolific and repetitive. It applies to theft, robbery, and sexual misconduct. In a random sample that excludes these individuals, you'll find that men are reliable, tedious, and unthreatening. It staggers me that 'women' would find alternative perceptions for political gain, because we have to get along!

I had female bosses for thirteen of the fifteen years that I worked for anyone else. On the whole I found female bosses to be more vindictive, more invidious, more intimidating and more humiliating than I ever witnessed men to be. There's an excuse that they had to be 'stronger' to be equally successful, but on the whole I found them vicious and arbitrary. I found women to be far more capable of inflicting sustained psychological violence over a period of years than men ever would. Men tend to be more abrupt, more physical and more limited than women. Men have this competitive encounter resolved in moments, whereas women seemed to destroy others over tens of years. I've seen encounters where groups of otherwise friendly fellers have been driven into conflict be competitive girlfrieds. I've found that 'let it go' runs better with men than women.

You punk sh*t you. ;-) Some of us had to write bubble searches when there was nothing but assembly. We wrote the bloody code. Don't imagine I was always a logical recidivist. The models you use to reduce data factories now were written by me and my peers in between writing 'Tron' for 'Computer & Video Games' Magazine, 1984. (Yes, I know, CVG now, you p*nces). You go off to these blinking exam courses in '95 and think you own the debate. I laugh in the face of your language compiler trap, if only because in my day you'd be staring at one million data points without a clue at rationalising them. Sod it. You'd be going 'load the stack...skim the stack', it's binary dontcha know? Incidentally, you'll never find the result by potting code. You have to feel the result. Stroke the knowledge. Numbers are an art, not a science. Signed Grumpy B@stard

A billion catholics?

lol! Nothing's changed since the 4th NoMoneyPenny ;-) If you want to know what's happening then just read the thread! There's also a press cutting in this thread here.

Hmm... yep China's pretty bizarre. Eating obscure things profers status, so it's a culinary art! I had dog penis, and Bird's Nest Soup (which is mainly sparrow vomit in milk). I actually saw guys harvesting the nests in Borneo just before Christmas. 150 metres up on the roof of a cave balanced on 15cm wide bamboo ladders that balanced on each other. It was so precarious I almost sh@t myself watching. I had a mate who had mouse foetus straight from the uterus (apologies to the sensitive amongst us), but I opted out. Plenty of cat, which was interchangeable with pork and chicken in fried dishes. They sold them packed into mesh cages in fresh meat markets with their little paws sticking out the side. Very cute, and appetising. The Chinese call the Koreans 'dog eaters' which I take to be ironic wit of the highest calibre. Scorpions and silkworms were straightforward, but I didn't much like the one where they skinned a live snake in front of you and threw it still wiggling into the wok. Just unnecessary. Drunken prawns were wierd. They threw the live prawns into a glass of Baijiu (pronounced By - Joe, literally 'white spirit'). As they became progressively pissed, you dragged 'em out, peeled their sluggish bodies and popped them into your mouth, washing them down with a slug from the tumbler.

We had a charming correspondent on the subject of religion a few months back, but this really gets my goat... Two catholics and a brazilian Let's hear it for team Pope!

Well, yes but... If it's a private traded company he can pay himself what he wants. If it's a public traded company then he can pay himself what the shareholders agree to, but this presupposes that they're both consulted and educated. If it's a publicly owned company then he gets paid what politicians feels is the minimum necessary whilst still retaining the vote. This presupposes that the public are educated sufficiently well to use their vote wisely.