Silence is Guardian. – The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on July 25, 2012

I have been waiting in vain for several days for the Guardian’s coverage of the latest ‘Domestic Violence’ outrage. I know how passionately they feel about the subject. 65 articles in the last 30 days alone – twice a day, every day. You would think that they would be shouting from the roof tops about one particular case which has resulted in the perpetrator being found guilty of Murder.

What could it be about this young woman that the Guardian doesn’t feel is worthy of coverage? Is she a Tory supporter perhaps, an ex-News of the World hack, a banker’s wife? Surely it couldn’t be the fact that she was acknowledged as ‘a bit of a slag’ – isn’t it every woman’s right to behave as licentiously as she wishes, to dress as she pleases, without drawing adverse comment, and certainly without being sent to the media equivalent of Coventry – no mention in the Guardian? What is it about her that makes her very name persona non grata in the hallowed columns of the Guardians extensive coverage of Domestic Violence? Narry even a hand wringing mention from Vera Baird?

It is not as though the Guardian have a moratorium on Domestic Violence this week, why on Monday we had the heart-string tugging ‘Women like my aunt should not be dying at the hands of violent partners‘ – it’s just that ‘Men like Clifford Collinge should not be dying at the hands of violent partners‘ doesn’t fit the feminist narrative beloved of the Guardian.

So they just ignore it.

It’s no use Clifford Collinge’s daughter making a heartfelt victim support statement to the court:

Among his many injuries, wealthy Mr Collinge suffered a head injury, fractured ribs and a collapsed lung.

In her statement to the court, Cristal, who was called “little princess” by her father, paid tribute to Mr Collinge, who she said was a talented musician and inspired her to play the guitar.

She added: “It’s been nine months now and I’m starting to realise I might not ever get over losing my dad.

“He really was my whole world.”

“In one night I lost my father, my mother, my home, my pets and all my belongings.

“How do you tell someone how it feels to lose your whole world in one go?”

Other media papers can get away with referring to Charlotte as Charlotte the Harlot; she can be the butt of sexist jokes:

“She behaved very sexually towards everyone.

“Someone said if you buy her half a lager she’ll do anything, so I bought her two, to laughter from the group we were with.”

Charlotte may be the latest poster girl for Feminine Equality, but she will not grace the pages of the Guardian.

The Guardian will ignore her.

For it is Charlotte who has just been found guilty of Domestic Violence, Murder, resulting in Clifford Collinge’s death.

Can anybody come up with a figure for me regarding the number of male victims of domestic violence?

* A special mention for Coronation Street, who are currently, and bravely, running a story line regarding battered husbands. You would think the Guardian would be thrilled to give them a mention for bringing domestic violence into the ‘Soap’ arena. Not a word!

{ 14 comments }

mark July 27, 2012 at 20:32

The truth will out!! More and more men are becoming victims of this man
hating feminazi society through murder, false allegations and losing their
homes and children through divorce. But if you try to raise these issues with
women they simply ignore you. This shows women’s true attitude to men in this
country . All men are good for are cash points and cannon fodder!!!These same
women then fail to understand why increasing numbers of men refuse to get
married, have children or commit in any way. Anglo Saxon women think that by
treating men badly, men will want to love them and support them and then can’t
understand why men are walking away or going on marriage strike. As far as
femnists are concerned men are scum and should be treated as such. ( MEN GO
THEIR OWN WAY)

Wigner’s Friend July 26, 2012 at 12:59

JuliaM has spotted another that Iwill bet does not make the Grauniad or The
Beeb. http://thylacosmilus.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/dont-play-knock-down-ginger-in-this.html

gladiolys July 25, 2012 at 16:48

Crikey, I’m not saying you don’t have a point, but all I could hear through
that was the grinding of your teeth.

Crikey ! July 25, 2012 at 16:49: There is much to grind teeth about. Just look at your taxes being
misused.

jerym July 25, 2012 at 15:02

What was the bit after “I am aware that in the UK”?
(Only joking)

James July 25, 2012 at 13:10

Donna Kebab, I’m with you. Crikey!

Crikey ! July 25, 2012 at 13:17: Precis?

Men, bad: women, good. OK to lie about it.

Donna Kebab July 25, 2012 at 13:02

Crikey! Any chance of a précis? Do you feel better now, Petal?

Crikey ! July 25, 2012 at 11:29

Not wishing to bore with a long essay, I will anyway.

This was a podcast from several years ago, which detailed the extent of the
means by which the Australian Government has colluded with Feminists to lie to
the public. The media here is not unlike that in the UK, with leftists
dominating. It is men that are cast as villains, always, and women are always
‘victims’. There are votes and billions in taxpayers’ money involved.

How Governments Lie about Domestic Violence.

Several brilliant expositions have been written about the complex web of
lies and corruption that have been inserted insidiously into America through
such Acts as VAWA, the Family Law and Child support agencies working in turn
through an unholy alliance between Federal and States governments.

A network of misandric, biased, criminal ‘Shelters’ has covered the land
with a new and vicious corruption at grass-roots level, purportedly to
‘assist’ women but in fact act as a conduit for corruption and
criminality.

I only have to mention Prof Stephen Baskerville’s ‘Taken into Custody’ work
for many at MND to understand. Or Professor Carey Roberts’ exposes.

But little gets written about other Anglophile countries. How much is known
in MRM circles and outside in the MSM about the corruption in the UK, for
instance.

I would like to set some facts down about another, Australia, a huge,
continental nation with a very modest population where leftist governments
have dominated the various States and now are in control Federally. This
wonderful land has been infected with the virus of feminist corruption to the
detriment of government, law, Institutions and families, men and women.

The rationale for all of the pertinent Law, the hysteria, the draconian
legislations is Domestic Violence.

The most horrendous lies are told about DV. And people seem to believe
them.

Deliberately lying about Domestic Violence in Australia.

I am indebted to a Senior Australian Public Servant who must remain
anonymous, for some crucial parts of this blog entry.
Pick up almost any
newspaper on any given day and you will most likely find a by-line claiming:
“Statistics show …”; “new survey finds …”; or, “new study proves …”. Often
accompanied by embellishments such as “shocking”, “appalling”, and so on.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than on the subject of gender relations and
in particular the emotionally charged subject of domestic violence, or it’s
substitute “family violence”.

It is about neither of course. It is all about women.

Hysteria is carefully stage-managed.

Only lip service is paid to the idea that males might be victims, and then,
we are told, they deserve it anyway.

Let me be clear from the start. I do not like domestic violence, just as I
do not like muggings, murders, rapes, armed robberies etc. But rarely is there
any need for muggings to be blown out of proportion by including asking for an
ice-cream even when a tantrum follows a ‘no’.

The panic and hysteria generated by falsified and invented Domestic
Violence does far more damage to society and to men and women’s relations,
than the very small amount of Domestic violence that exists and which is blown
completely out of proportion.

Australia does not collect unified data on Domestic Violence. Not directly.
Figures get lifted out of context from a variety of ‘official’
documents.
The most widely cited statistics on the subject in Australia is
the Women’s Safety Survey, published in 1996 that repeats American claims,
“One in four women experience domestic violence, within their lifetime”.

There was no Men’s Safety Survey.

The bias was there even before the survey was designed.

It was another ten years, 2006, that a further more inclusive Safety survey
was conducted.

This article looks at this biased, anti-male 1996 Survey and other sources
which have driven Public Policy in Australia.

I will also show the 2006 survey in some depth and reveal the government’s
response.

One in Four Women Abused.

This American claim of ‘One in Four’ ubiquitously applied to most female
claims of outrage, first surfaced in the left-wing Feminist Ms Magazine in the
1970’s after a deliberately doctored survey about rape using a self-selected
sample of its anti-male readers.

One in Four is a ‘super-term’. It is akin to an hypnotic chant that robs
people of control over their thoughts. It is applied to almost anything to do
with women.

Being given a glass of wine before sex constituted rape according to that
travesty of a survey, commissioned by Ms and conducted by a misandric feminazi
‘Professor’, Mary Koss.

A considerable broadening of what constitutes domestic violence and sexual
assault was demanded by feminists in America to access the gravy train of the
Violence Against Women Act, (VAWA) and the left-wing President Clinton, the
well known sexual assaulter of young women employees, complied.

Clinton sought to make reparation for his own sexual incontinence by
punishing every man in America. He was assisted in this by the then Senator
Joe Biden – who explained how he used to be beaten-up by his sister when he
was young, and was making his own Kow-Tow to her continued ‘advice’. Biden was
an architect of VAWA. He cared not for violence against men and may well be a
masochist by nature.

VAWA opened the door to a widespread and mendacious catalogue of innocuous
behaviours being classified as ‘assault’ and DV in a flood of Advocacy
Research.

People in other western countries will recognise the same dirty fingers in
the pie-charts of their own bogus and mendacious advocacy research
underpinning their own Government Policies.

The Women’s Safety Survey findings, which uses this sleight of hand,
underpins Australian Government policy and legislation in every Australian
state jurisdiction – with the exception of Victoria, which now evidently
claims that “one in five women are victims of domestic violence”. This
apparently suggests that women would be much safer if they all moved to
Victoria. Maybe it is something in the Victorian air.

No “study” is of much value until it has been subjected to peer review.
This hasn’t occurred in relation to the Women’s Safety Survey. For a number of
reasons, there is an urgent need for independent and thorough research and
review.

The WSS study was released under the imprimatur of the Australian Bureau of
Statistics but was in fact a creature of the bureaucratically powerful Office
of Status of Women which commissioned and directed the survey.

There was significant consternation reported at that time in relation to
complaints, by ABS officers – that they were being “bullied” into undertaking
unprofessional, and methodologically flawed “advocacy research”- research
which is designed to prove the existence of something, whether it exists or
not.
Several Executive level officers of the ABS were later ‘re-located’ to
‘re-education’ roles

The notion that one in four women are suffering from domestic violence is
alarming and conjures images, at the very least, of black eyes and bruises
occurring on an appalling scale.

But it is a lie.

How many Australian’s would know that the survey included such largely
irrelevant questions as “Have you ever received an obscene phone call?” A
phone rings and no one is there. Bogus fear is conveniently generated from a
neurotic mind.

Tick the box.
Another sexual assault.

Yeh. Pig’s arse !

It beggars belief that questions like this formed the bulk of the
survey.

It has barley any relevance to domestic violence at all.

But…. It’s another male-damning statistic.

But the Office for the Status of Women did not stop there. The determined
harridans were intent on spin to beat all spin.

How many would know that the survey report blurred the fact that some 27
per cent of respondents were actually reporting violence caused by other
women?

Heck, that’s just over One in Four !

It must have been men that made them do it.

Believe me, you can be convinced.

In fact, you have been.

There were many other seriously disturbing aspects to this survey. For
example, it also involved only voluntary participation, which is a key source
of survey bias – just as in the Ms magazine survey – as it attracts
participants who may have a vested interest the subject matter, a factor that
can dramatically skew the results.

In the desired direction, of course.

And, it was a “life incidence” survey, thus inviting the recitation of some
event far off in both time and in memory. The failings of human memory with
the passage of time is well recognised by our legal system, which, with very
few exceptions, refuses to admit evidence that has been muddied by time and
with no corroboration.

Forty years and a bitter divorce can change a memory from someone merely
“pushing away” into “he threw me down the stairs”. Who is there to
contradict?
The law recognises the frailty of old memories but our ever
-increasing victim culture does not.

Society would not entertain the concept that someone is currently
considered to be a “road accident victim” based on a minor bruise they had
incurred in a vehicle accident 20 years ago.

Nor would we necessarily put much faith in a 20-year-old version of how the
accident occurred.

Yet this is precisely what such surveys on domestic violence increasingly
attempt to encourage for society to accept as reality, current and relevant
for domestic violence and assault.

When citing the “one in four” statistic, some domestic violence literature
conveniently leaves out the phrase “within their lifetime”, giving a false
impression of immediacy; that one in four women are victims, right now, on
this very day.

Think about that.

Every shout-at, telling-off, even smack on the legs when we were five years
old being counted so that everyone has been the ‘victim’ of abuse.

Moreover, the Women’s Safety Survey did not overtly say that one in four
women were victims of “physical” domestic violence, but included a range of
other non-physical and both potentially and actually non-violent behaviours
that were then re-classified as “domestic violence”. It covertly implies it is
all physical violence.

A man not handing over his pay-packet to his wife is ‘economic DV’. No
mention that it demanding his wages is extortion.

Him answering that ‘Yes’ her bum does look fat in those jeans, is ‘verbal
DV’. It ‘demeans” and is therefore ‘violent’.

An argument between a couple with both shouting is HIM being violent. She
is simply defending herself by ‘communicating’.

Advocacy research has taken over much of what passes for academic and
‘official’ date collection.

It sets out to provide ‘proof’ for a conclusion already held. It supports a
Prejudice.

Why do you think that anyone would want to go to the time and effort to do
that?

Show me the Money.

Domestic violence literature, when citing such advocacy research survey
findings characterise the one in four statistic as referring to physical
violence.
The leaflets handed out by the self-declared socially conscious
commercial retail chain, “The Body Shop”, being a case in point. It
manipulates. It attracts. It drew wannabee socially conscious women customers
in to buy fragrant soaps and candles, to ‘support victims of domestic
violence’.

Domestic Violence lies sells women’s products.

“After you have been beaten by an unappreciative man, you poor victimized
woman, you need to pamper yourself. You deserve it.”

“Oooh, let me have some of those candles, you poor thing, I am a victim,
too. Honest.”

“Is that right. Could you take a minute to fill out this survey while I
wrap these for you”.

Such ‘women’s goods’ shop chains have no shame in ripping off women by
appealing to ‘support for victims’. Even refugees from Torture and Trauma are
roped in. The Refugee resettlement organisations in Australia get Government
funds which are then siphoned off to run ‘joint’ appeals with such women’s
goodies retail outlets for ‘raising consciousness’. And getting women to fill
in surveys. They only mention women refugees of course. The maimed men do not
get to take part. It makes for a fine week’s boost to turnover and the private
company ‘bottom line’.

It gets women’s votes too.

Domestic violence literature across the board not only blurs the past with
the present but blends quite different and sometimes relatively innocuous
behaviours with the abjectly violent, in order to incite a widespread
impression that physical domestic violence against women is currently running
rampant and unchecked in our community.

The survey gives an Australian flavour to the increasingly
Internationalised American charade of a law, the Violence Against Women Act,
brought in by the American Cultural-Marxist group, the National Organisation
of Women, and pushed through by the efforts of the current American Vice
President, Joe Biden.

Such a gender biased law has gobbled up Billions of dollars of American
taxpayers money funneled to women’s groups; with nothing at all to male
‘victims’.

Australia is behind with the Dollars but then it is a much smaller
tax-base. It is just Hundreds of Millions. With the Global Economic Crisis
upon us, it will catch up with some Stimulus Packages for the girls, be sure.
Kevin Rudd’s ‘working families’ have had their day and the non-working,
single-mother families are on the increase.

No prizes for guessing why.

Right now in 2009 our Great leader, Chairman Mousey Kev is announcing a
massive increase in Grants to women. More to the Violence against Women
mantra. Our Equality Chairwoman was doing the Press round appearing on TV in
July 2009 to rally the media at the weekly Press Club broadcast.
Here we
are in the middle of the worst recession, supposedly, since the demise of the
Mickey Mouse Club and the girls want what is left of the money.
But, no
worry. Chairman Kev will sell the children’s future to pay today’s women.

It buys votes.

Women’s votes.

The Office for the Status of Women is a vast black hole into which
taxpayer’s money is poured. It exists soley to benefit Government and the
powerful female bureaucrats that run the show, none of which has ever seen a
glass ceiling.

The Office channels Policy like Shirley MacLain channels 5000 year old
Egyptian Gurus.

A beneficiary has been the Health Departments both Federal and State that
have had billions of dollars funneled into ‘Women’s Health’ while dregs are
given to men.

But I digress.

The mendacious nature of the now ubiquitous term domestic violence, which
brings under its one heading a range of non-physical behaviours is of primary
concern. The nuances of context and intensity are increasingly lost in a
determined re-interpretation of any kind of marital disagreement, into a
paradigm of male “perpetrator” and a female “victim”.

It breaks traditional families apart.

We see a lot of street behaviour that we might regard as offensive or
verbally aggressive but in the absence of a physical assault (whether major or
minor) we don’t classify it as violence per se.

Yet domestic violence researchers seem to almost salivate over a positive
response to, “Has your partner ever yelled at you?”

Tick!

Another female domestic violence victim.

Another man-damning statistic.

Although, “Did you yell back?”, is conveniently never asked.

No one asks the chap of course.

Do you feel like yelling yet?

The WSS surveyed 6000 odd carefully selected women and no men at all.

Gross, dishonest, Gender-biased sampling marks this survey.

Ambiguous and irrelevant questions litter it.

Subterfuge and bribery marks its collection.

Bias runs throughout the findings.

It drives a biased, anti-male Un-Australian Industry that expropriates
Public Monies and supports commercial interests.

It drives prejudiced and bigoted Government Policy.

The survey does not like to stand out like a sore thumb as the only data.
Let’s look at the other common sources of dodgy data misrepresented by our
feminist-driven Government, to convince the Australian public that we have an
epidemic of Family Violence which is attributed solely to evil Australian men.

Lies build upon lies.

More lies convince better than just one.

Let us take a look at intervention orders issued by the lower courts as a
source of bogus “statistical evidence” of the “magnitude” of domestic or
‘family’ violence.

Let us also will look at Police records of DV ‘Incidents’ and how they are
not at all what they seem. Or what the general public is told.

Let us look at the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program which is also
misrepresented to the detriment of men and the advantage if the DV Industry.

Wrong and often bogus statistics are deployed, with an apparent intention
to deliberately mislead.

Add Wing of Bat and Eye of Lizard to the Pot

Having looked at the uncorroborated, biased and manipulated Women’s Safety
Survey let us look now at Intervention Orders and how they are manipulated
too.

Most “finalised” intervention orders are finalised simply because they are
uncontested. That is, the male “respondent” is persuaded (often bullied) by
court officials, such as Deputy Court Registrars, into signing up for a
“final” or “permanent” order rather than contest the allegations in court.

The lower courts don’t want any more congestion if it can be avoided.

Men are manipulated. The Bat’s-wing.

Convincing a bewildered “respondent” to sign up for the permanent order on
the basis of a “By Consent, Without Admissions”, is not particularly
difficult, especially if a solicitor has already advised him that it could
cost up to $10,000 if he goes to court.

And further, that he will most likely lose.

The Burden of Proof is laid on the defendant, not the accuser. Proving a
negative is plain impossible.

The legal test is not “beyond reasonable doubt” but merely the “balance of
probabilities”. This is a very weak civil law test in the context of penalties
that could ultimately imprison a respondent, and certainly dispossess him of
his assets.

This happens in Tasmania where the ironically misnamed ‘Safe at Home Act’
ensures that male arrest is automatic with no bail on simple female
accusation.

He loses access to his home and children and even loses his job because he
cannot prove he didn’t do what he didn’t do. Magistrates are badgered by the
Safe at Home Act and are increasingly fearful of bad publicity if a violent
act should possibly subsequently occur.

As it is quite possible. The catalyst for possible subsequent violence,
ironically, is often the faked restraining order allegations in the first
place and the trauma of being hauled into court often for the first time in
his life. The magistrates are as aware as anyone of the adage, “Might as well
be hanged for a sheep as a lamb’.

In this instance is ‘hang him just in case he has his eye on a lamb’.

When you are convicted of something you didn’t do, on a false allegation
you cannot disprove, you may well want to earn your punishment.
So much for
“justice” and the fading jurisprudential notion of the “presumption of
innocence”.

Whether a female complainant was ever genuinely fearful or merely a
perjurer and liar is often un-explored. And if it is questioned at all, with
due compassion and concern for the ‘victim’, the diluted “balance of
probabilities” test still renders such findings questionable.

Domestic violence literature increasingly proclaims that domestic violence
is a crime. Quite so. Therefore, in any legal action, the criminal law test of
“beyond reasonable doubt” should be applied. It never is.

Given the growing understanding that intervention orders are regularly used
as a tactical weapon in achieving favourable custody and property outcomes in
subsequent Family Court proceedings, a count of intervention orders as a
measure of “violence against women” is virtually meaningless.

Yet such statistics are used for precisely that.

I sat in the Hobart, Tasmania, Family Court and listened as a ‘fearful’ 27
y/o ex wife of four years marriage accused her poor sod of a ex-husband of 62
from whom she had taken three quarters of his lifetime’s assets, of murdering
her previous boyfriend – who in fact had been deported as an illegal immigrant
– and of being an International Terrorist. He had been in the Israeli army on
National Service 30 years before.

The Judge said she was being ‘fanciful’. No charges of perjury were laid
and no investigations ordered for such heinous crimes, And she was awarded the
children. Of course. ‘Just in case’.

Over the course of the following three years that man was arrested seven
times and spent four nights in jail. He was hospitalized twice. He was
arrested on one occasion after she accused him of assault. He had leaned on
her car.

Another domestic violence statistic.

Always added, never subtracted when disproven. No one tries to seek truth.
It was disregarded at his Court case that he has been run over by a horse and
buggy and has a damaged back. He leaned because he was in pain.

Tough.

Which brings us onto the Eye of Lizard.

Another statistic commonly cited by an increasingly frenzied domestic
violence Industry is the number of POLICE CALL-OUTS to domestic or family
violence ‘Incidents’.

Whether the “incident” involved verbal disagreement between husband and
wife or an act of actual violence, we would never know. It is merely noted as
an “incident”.

In fact, if the protagonists were two 14 year old brothers arguing in the
front lawn that too, would be noted on the official records as a domestic or
family violence incident.

These records of “incidents” are then inevitably fed into the ever-swelling
“conduit” of statistics that ultimately produces headlines that purport,
“alarming new data shows domestic violence against women running out of
control”.

The police in any region know who the violent families are. They attend the
same people time and time again. The vast majority of citizens are not violent
and do not have ‘domestic violence’ in their homes and families. But when one
family chalks up 25 ‘Incidents’, and 200 families account for 2000 Incidents,
it is made to appear that ten times as many men are guilty than are.

The women never are guilty of course. They are made out to be 2000
victims.

The end result is then ever-increasing public funding to combat the ever
burgeoning horror of violence against women. Nobody ever delves deep enough to
examine how many of these police reported “incidents” actually involved a
physical violence or threat of violence or indeed whether a woman was even
present at the time.

Leg of Cane-Toad too.

Few if any newspapers or TV ‘expose’ shows ever investigate the amount of
public funding to any organisation that puts itself under the “domestic
violence umbrella” or else you will instantly understand why this has become a
publicly funded “industry” of vast size.

The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program is yet another supportive
source of statistics on so-called “family violence”.

The SAAP gives priority to ‘battered women’. Love that phrase.

What the SAAP data does not show however, is how many women were encouraged
to falsely claim they were fleeing family violence, or indeed what the nature
of the “violence” was, so that they could receive the priority treatment gravy
train.

A recent Canberra Times article, lamenting the lack of affordable low cost
public housing for poor families, featured a couple with young children who
were forced to live in a caravan. A “housing worker” was quoted as suggesting
to the mother, “If there was family violence, you could get a house straight
away”: i.e. claim you are a female victim and the “world is your oyster”.

Male victims need not apply.

Using SAAP data as a measure of violence against women is badly flawed
because it can be and is misconstrued – again with an apparent deliberate
intent – to reflect a statistic illustrating the number of women and children
fleeing family violence.

SAAP data, in fact, often reflects the large number of homeless men who
being so frequently dispossessed by individual chicanery and Family Court
excoriation, are seeking emergency accommodation. They do not get priority of
course.

By both omission and commission, Australia is being sold a very gross and
socially dangerous statistical lie – one that is serving only the interests of
its creators, and those legions who have so readily signed up to the fictional
notion that every fourth female face we see each day is secretly living in
stark terror and fear of “family violence”.

So, What is the Truth.

Some women unfortunately are victims of ‘family violence’, let’s admit as
evidence and acknowledge the fact.

1.2% are according to a rare example of independent University research by
Bruce Headly and Dorothy Scott of Melbourne University and David De Vaus of La
Trobe.

But that was a non-self-selected, random sample.

1.2%. This tiny percentage, well below the oft cited 25%, needed first aid,
so bad was the violence they had experienced at the hands of a domestic
partner.
And so did some men.

The same research shows 1.8% for men needing first aid, a full 50% higher.

Even smaller percentages of both needed a doctor’s attention. But again
more men than women. 1.5% men vs 1.1% women.

Moreover, the Headly, Scott and De Vaus summary measure of experiencing a
range of forms of assault fails to reveal any preponderance of assaults on
women:

4.7% of the sample reported being assaulted ‘in some way’ during the last
12 months; 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women. Not needing any attention to damage
though.

They had had a shouting match and called each other naughty names.

Again, that is over half as many men more than women. And so far below the
mythical 25%, the 1:4, terribly, awfully suffering women, as to make a total
rejection of feminist lies.

What must be untangled – so that effective measures can be put into place –
is the real incidence of such violence from the bogus statistical
misrepresentations that are serving an entirely different agenda.

The critical issue of DV is all too often overlooked completely; it’s low
experience in the community.
• • 94.4% of people reported in Headly et al,
being neither perpetrators nor victims of violence.
• • 2.5% report both
assaulting and being assaulted.
• • 2.1% report being assaulted but not
committing assault.
• • 1.0% report assaulting their partner but not being
assaulted.

No signs at all of 25% anywhere.

This Independent research showed clearly that DV affects a miniscule
proportion of the population, and on every measure but one men suffered
greater domestic violence from women than women did from men and in greater
percentage numbers.

The one measure?

She calls the police far more often.

The mantle of mass victimhood casts a long and very dark shadow that too
often conceals the very location of the destruction of truth and where
propaganda is given the oxygen for its blowtorch.

The Federal Government spent $73 million on television adverts showing only
male perpetrators and only female victims. Sheer AgitProp.

THAT is domestic violence.

You paid for it with expropriated taxes.

Almost all political tyrannies have their origin in segregating societies
into the conceptual equivalent of “good and evil”, “angels and demons”,
“victims and perpetrators”. “Four legs good, two legs bad”. There is never a
middle ground

“Male equals perpetrator”, “female equals victim”.

When liars are afoot in society, in power, their first weapon of choice is
statistical “proof” to provide convincing lies.

One has to wonder why intelligent, moral men and women in Australia put up
with this. Men are demonized but say little to protect their Reputations and
their legitimate interests.

Women’s legitimate interests have been hi-jacked by a clique of
destructive, Marxist-Feminist women who spread blatant lies on their behalf,
expropriate public monies and claim a bogus high moral ground.

It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the
result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind
it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.

It is statistical corruption; fiscal corruption; political corruption.

As a result of that bogus 1996 survey, and with the ongoing manipulation
and misrepresentation of the three other ‘Official’ statistics discussed
above, women fear walking in the street, especially at night. Every husband is
regarded as a potential wife-beater. Funds flow to women’s groups.

Domestic Violence advocacy was the fastest growing Industry of the decade
following, employing thousands in ‘jobs for the girls, paid from taxpayer
expropriations

The Truth is out there – somewhere.

I mentioned before that an Official but Independent and reliable survey
needs to be done to establish valid figures for Policy determination.

Following the row between the Women’s Office and the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, over Feminist manipulation and bullying, the ABS conducted it’s
own survey.

It took ten years to get around to it, mind you.

The results were very different to the bogus ones of the Office for the
Status of Women, despite their continued attempts to interfere and
manipulate.
The Australian Government has ignored the more relevant ABS
findings under pressure from those same feminists who continue to exercise
undemocratic control.

The ABS to manage to do a more reliable examination in 2006 which tried to
show the truth. At least it didn’t leave out an entire gender this
time.
Once again, however, the Feminists managed to interfere and
manipulate, and I will show you how. I also show how you can delve into the
data collected to bring the Truth into the light of day.

The ABS Personal Safety Survey finally emerged in 2006 and sampled BOTH
genders – for a change.

And along with its appearance, the statistical myths and fabrications of
feminist’s victimhood, and women’s class oppression , and claims of an
epidemic of violence against women – were able to be immediately exposed and
contradicted

But the silence was deafening.

Have you heard of the Personal Safety Survey or its findings?

No?

What a surprise. !

Have you heard of 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence?

Of course you have.

The silence didn’t last of course as it was soon replaced with a $73
million Government advertising campaign based on the old false results
appearing on TV sets nation-wide.

It was like sticking fingers in women’s ears and having them chant
“lalalalalala; Men, bad; Women, victims”.

The survey reveals a picture of what any rational person should have
assumed about life simply by observation of the world around them and their
day to day existence in it.

The survey reveals what most people should have known or should have
suspected about the facts of social violence – it is men rather than women who
have the most to fear regarding their personal safety.

It further reveals that the perpetrators of violence, in all their ugly
forms and diversity, are not just men, and that the domain of perpetrators
includes a significant percentage of women.

There are few surprises in this survey other than it seems to have been
conducted with appropriate propriety and adherence to statistical
principles.
Almost.

A refreshing breath of almost-fresh air given the lies and spin of so many
preceding studies and surveys conducted on this subject.

But before delving into some its facts and figures, there are a couple of
points that should be clarified about the survey itself.

As surveys go, it seems to have been done fairly responsibly but with some
clear prior interference. It encompassed a sizeable sample of the population –
16,300 adults in total, about 0.1% of the Australian adult population – so its
findings could be seen to be a reasonable reflection of what’s really going on
in Australia today.

That’s 2 and a ½ times the sample size of the feminist’s survey.

However, for some reason you will instantly recognise, nearly three times
as many women were surveyed than men – 11,800 women compared to only 4,500
men.

What a surprise !

The feminists just cannot help themselves, can they?

Ask yourselves; there are 50% women and 50% men in our society. There are
usually one man and one woman in a domestic couple.

OK. There are sometimes two men together, but rare, and two women together,
but rare.

So why a sample that is 75% women and 25% men?

It is better than 100% women and 0% men, as in the 1996 survey, but still
only a little better. Half a loaf.

Men’s experiences of personal safety are not deemed as valid as those of
women. Did they expect that women’s experiences of violence would be more
valid, diverse or significant?

Or was it simply a matter of funding as is implied in the survey’s notes?

Funding controlled by feminists in the bureaucracy?

You get the Report; read it carefully and make your own mind up. Read the
notes.

Whatever the reason for it, and there is no fair or justifiable stance that
could possibly be taken for this glaring discrepancy, the question remains,
why were men relegated to being less than second class respondents?

No one has provided an answer.

You can go figure it for yourself, but perhaps we can hope this imbalance
will be addressed in any further surveys where the sex of the respondents is
relevant.

For now though, when digesting the results, it must be understood that
sample distribution bias still exists .

In fact, in some cases, reflected in the ABS tables, annotations have been
made by the statisticians indicating that the data may be of questionable
reliability.

Why would that be?

Why would the ABS warn about its own data?

I will tell you in a moment.

Given the importance and far reaching social implications of this survey,
this restriction of men’s experiences is a travesty of their rights as
taxpayers and citizens of the nation.

Especially as it turns out from the survey results that men are the most
severely affected members of society where personal safety and violence are
concerned.

This treatment of men is a clear statement by the Government that they see
Australian men as being second class and less important than the women of the
nation.

Yet, in the Liberal’s defense, – they had achieved Government by then – it
must be argued that they are the first and so far only government in Australia
to include men in such a survey at all.

Previous Labor governments, which had presided over the totally bogus
Women’s Safety Survey, simply didn’t care about the safety of men and only
ever conducted safety surveys for women.

This development in itself is at least some consolation for Australian men
and was a positive step forward.

Now, the reason for the annotated questioning of the reliability of the
data, especially about the men.

You see, the other glaring concern about the production of this ABS survey
was the sexist exclusion of men as interviewers.

100% of the interviews were conducted by women.

Only women were employed as interviewers.

No men.

By order of the Feminist bureaucracy.

It is important to realise that by using ONLY female interviewers, it is
likely to have led to an underreporting of spousal and partner violence
against men by females and an over-reporting of men’s violence against women.

In a national survey of this significance, one could have at least expected
squeaky-clean adherence to equal-sex political correctness.

Hah!

Pig’s Arse !

Despite these sexist anomalies the survey reveals for the first time, much
important information about personal safety, and the victims and perpetrators
of personal violence.

It is a subject, which has long been obscured by the murky fog of feminist
advocacy. Prejudice and proving prior expectations have ruled such
research.
But against the odds, this survey has revealed and has exposed
the feminist lies.

The following statements, derived directly from the ABS survey, are just
the initial findings and a fuller investigation by YOU, yourself, of the finer
detail is encouraged.

Do not simply take my word.

I will compare the freshly published data to the often-quoted rhetorical
statistics of feminist propaganda – and remember this, these are official
Australian government research figures and not some trumped up, biased,
ideologically prejudiced University Women’s Studies data or those of some
politically or gender- biased NGO.

Those rhetorical stats use the 1:4 comparison device, or the ‘per second’
and per day and per week device to hide the real numbers which would look as
small as they actually are. It sounds so much better to say that two women a
week are killed by husbands than to say that 102 women out of a population of
30 million are killed annually by nutters.

Two per week generates more hysteria than 0.00034%

And of course the feminists never tell you that 94 men per annum, nearly
but not quite two men per week are killed by female spouses.

Facts – the ABS survey has revealed that –
In Australia, men are more
than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being
physically or sexually assaulted or threatened, at the rate of up to 2
incidents per second

Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence anywhere near as
often as the quoted 25%, 1 in 4, – nor even 1 in 10, – nor even 1 in 20, but
actually 1 in 50

That is to say, 2%

Women are not being raped and sexually assaulted every 26 seconds, as
claimed by the Feminists of the Office for the Status of Women, nor even every
90 seconds, as other feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing
rape hardly at all.

And even when combined with the lesser sexual assaults, it is at a rate 91%
less than that which feminists have previously claimed.

Look at that another way. Feminist claims are exaggerated by at least 10
times.

And this includes both reported and all unreported incidents ‘discovered’
by the survey interviewers.

The ratio of female vs male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is
not 99:1, with men very rarely assaulted and women bashed daily, nor 95:5, nor
75:1, nor even 50:1, but is actually 2:1

And some of the women are being assaulted in the ‘domestic’ sphere by other
women.

These statements above are all calculated from the ABS survey data without
corruption. Look at the figures.

Of course there will be some deviation from the survey compared to real
life figures, just as in all studies – always read the fine print of surveys –
but, remember, nearly three women were interviewed for every one man.

The data for men may have been tainted by the use of only female
interviewers, some of whom may even have been staunch feminists, – show me a
woman who claims she isn’t and I will show you a lonely one – and together
with the sample number bias, resulting in underreporting of men’s experience
of family violence as victims.

Let us look closely at some other interesting statistics –
During the
previous 12 months in Australia, that is, in 2005, 6.5% of males were
physically assaulted. And 3.1% of females

That is 1 in 15 men compared to 1 in 32 women.

Conclusion: Women are safer.

Attempted or threatened physical assaults were against 5.3% of males and
just 2.1% of females.

Conclusion: Women are 2.5 times safer from threats and attempts than men
are.

Women can expect greater safety than men can.

There isn’’t a bogeyman down every dark street looking for a woman to
assault.

The bogeyman is too busy assaulting men.

In the sexual assault area beloved of feminists and the source of fright,
alarm and horror – and endless expropriated taxes for agitprop – the survey
indeed finds the figures swing to women being more likely to be sexually
assaulted than men are.

But the figures are lower still.

Not 1 in 4 women.

Not 25%, as reported in the bogus Women’s Safety Survey.

It is just 1.6%

1 – point – 6 – per cent reported being sexually assaulted.

Did you hear that? 1.6 %

That’s 1 in 62. Not 1 in 4.

And MEN are sexually assaulted too. 0.6 %.

Threats and attempts at sexual assault are even lower.

0.5% for women and 0.1% for men.

98% of women are perfectly safe and not even under threat of sexual
assault.

Sexual assault on women, and even on men, is very low.

Not that such a F.A.C.T. fact makes headlines in the newspapers.

It doesn’t sell.

It doesn’t sell ‘stuff’ like scented candles and soap in the Body Shop.

Why are women being deliberately frightened by the Government?

YOU have to ask your MP.

Deliberately Frightening Women: Neglecting Men.
In conclusion, what does
all this mean?

It means that Australia as a nation is the first in the Western world to
undertake a survey of adult personal safety and violence based on the sex of
the community.

It has both massive and broad implications for social scrutiny and the
politics of sex and violence. It stands as a precedent for further world
development and application.

It also has immediate application to other Western societies. Australia,
being a contemporary Western nation has been subjected, more or less, to the
same political influences over the last half century that have been
experienced by the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and arguably most other
European nations.

The data recorded would be directly applicable to other Western societies,
more or less and may be quoted as a being from a highly reputable
source.
The results of this survey should be seen as the first
authoritative sample of non-advocacy research on the issues of Western social
violence and in particular, inter-gender personal violence.

The results are both revealing and deeply informative.

Revealing about the incorrectness of previously published feminist advocacy
research – and subsequent government information too – and informative about
the dire state of violence perpetrated against men in modern civilised Western
societies.

The data also provide the basis for a requirement for Western governments
to become focused on the safety standards of its men as a top priority and to
begin to recognise that there are serious deficiencies in its treatment of men
in society.

The survey also amplifies the ludicrous state of Western government’s
pursuit of highly expensive anti-violence campaigns and legislation for the
least affected victims of personal violence – women – whilst a much more
serious problem of violence exists and is being waged against its men.

It also establishes facts that require governments and anti-male NGOs in
Australia to immediately rewrite their literature and websites which state
false and misleading statistics about personal violence, and in particular,
men as overwhelmingly family violence perpetrators. They are not.

The data shows clearly that in the home, in the family, 98.5% of men are
safe, law abiding, indeed loving, protective and caring husbands and
fathers.
It should also lead to an immediate nation-wide reassessment of
family relationship management and Family Law values.

But don’t hold your breath.

It’s no wonder that feminists, the government and the mainstream media in
Australia have been so quiet about the release of this new survey.
It
exposes a huge raft of feminist baloney, lies and deceptions.

The silence also shows that the Government is deliberately frightening
women.

The Government wants women to be frightened of men.

And the media is in the Government’s pocket.

Yes, the truth is out – and out there – somewhere.

But have YOU seen it? Have YOU heard it?

You have now.

Pompey Cowboy July 26, 2012 at 16:36

Wow you obviuosly feel passionately about this subject.
As you suggest
the playing field isnt level on this subject, and I do know men who have
been the victim of domestic violence.
My wife clocked me one last xmas,
but I probably deserved it being a POmpey Lad
Sometimes we forget that we
are just “Smart” animals and that animal behaviour comes out at times. If
you’ve ever had several dogs or cats together you’ve probably witnessed
pecking orders and how they can go for each other when things come to a
head.
The courts seem to treat women who commit violent offences less
severly than a man. For example the woman recently who “glassed” another
woman, severing an artery, got off with a slap on the wrist and no custodial
sentence because she was a nice person. Compare that to the treatment of the
cardiff lad who just tweeted racist nonsense about the footballer who had a
heart attack ( and it was no threatening nonsense) or indeed the son of the
Pink Flloyd member who got caught up in the protest, but wasnt violent, well
not like sticking a glass in another womans face, and both got custodial
sentences

Woman on a Raft July 26, 2012 at 17:24: But if she happens to mutter something people don’t like on the tube,
or if she answers back when they tell her she can’t say that, of if she
puts a toy in a window….then the CPS springs into action.

BTW, Emma West’s trial has been delayed until September. Don’t want
anything embarrassing during the O-lumpics, do we.

http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Trial-alleged-YouTube-tram-racist-Emma-West-moved/story-16543355-detail/story.html

They may (or may not) ignore violence by women but they sure are
terrified of what women think or say. At least, certain women.

mark July 27, 2012 at 20:35

Yes I know the truth. The only way for men to protect themselves is to
withdraw from society and go their own way. Women will look around for men
to provide for them and protect them and they will find that there will be
no-one there. Who will protect feminists from Islam?? No one!!!!
My only
regret is that I will not be around to see it….

Crikey ! July 25, 2012 at 09:01

I am aware that in the UK the Feminist pollies are fond of quoting that 2
women die every week from domestic violence. They don’t mention the one chap
per week though.

Then there is the ubiquitous one in four, 25% of women will be raped.
Another exaggeration.

In fact the percentages are very small and fairly evenly distributed.

In Australia there were three ‘survey’s made. The first ‘ABS’ survey in
1996 confirmed the 25%, Surprise surprise. The several executives of the ABS
who cried foul and that the entire survey was constructed and directed by the
Office for the Status of Women even showed how only women were interviewed
after careful selection and only by women interviewers. The sample was not
‘radom, but self-selected. They were ‘moved’ to other departments.

The second survey in 2006 included some men in the survey but again only
women interviewers were used. The horrid factoids were diluted just a
little.

The ‘other’ survey was Independant, conducted by three (two men and a
woman) academics using a representative sample.