Totally agree, I think it relates back to the upbringing of boys in the family home, My father treated women with old school respect, if me or my brother did anything to upset our mother He soon taught us to have RESPECT for women, it has to start in the family home, might sound old fashioned but it worked!

Gundog is right. There is no way changing laws or anything else authorities can really do. It has to be attitudinal change that comes from within the parental scope in bringing up young men. The general lack of respect for others seems to have gone to new heights in today's society, particularly towards women. Several times I had to pull young guys up at work in the way that they spoke to their wives, girlfriends and female work colleagues. I also think that meth use has a bit to do with it as it is now very widespread and makes people ultra aggressive. It really is a scourge that there is few answers as usually DM occurs behind closed doors and many victims are fearful in reporting it.

Greg.

I reckon you are spot on with the meth use when it comes to domestic violence, well I guess also violence in general.
I often scan the NSW Lawlink pages to see who is appearing in court locally.
Would not hazard a guess what percentage is AVO related and also would not hazard a guess what societal group make up the largest chunk of that. The AVO levels in my rural town can be quite staggering at times and it is often the same surnames, families etc that appear.
There is definitely one common denominator - drugs.
It is unknown if the local girl's death (nearby Forbes) that has sparked this recent round of protests had a male partner involved in that area and not ALL domestic violence acts involve drugs of course.
It would be interesting to see the stats on it though.

As to solutions, well, locally there seems to be an age old culture of certain groups that seem to continually bash their women.
How one curbs that age old culture is the $60,000 question.
I am in favour of ankle bracelets for perpetrators that fit the bill for one to be attached e.g. the "violent" types.
Although I am told they don't always work, some crims are simply too smart for ankle brace;lets, but they may still be of some assistance.
They certainly DID NOT work recently when some youths from Bourke, two of whom had ankle bracelets on wrecked a servo here 200 miles away from Bourke with a locally stolen car. The usual daily event that takes place here.
So ankle bracelets might not be ideal, but hey, if they save one poor lady's life, then so be it, they are worth it.

The other one mooted are the emergency buttons in use for ladies at threat.
My 96 year old mum has one of those seniors persons alarm pendants.
I may end up with one myself in the not too distant future as my Leukaemia and other medical complaints kick in over time.
I am very impressed with the pendant system that my mum has (she still lives alone with some DVA care, mum is gold card) and I think it also would be of some advantage if a lady with AVO issues was confronted with a barred offender.

These are two basic solutions toward saving SOME lives and I am sure there are other strategies that could be implemented.

Corndoggy what you are suggesting is similar to what the ruling class will arrive at, but that will not save one life.

How does someone in an impaired sense of judgement consider the ramifications of their actions when fuse has been lit.

Each and every one of the recent murders of women needs to analyzed about the circumstances that caused the situation, not just immediate time period but all prior events prior and after break up of the relationship.

Note this is not a recent thing, it's been happening a hundred years or more.

A Talkfest does at least bring visability to the problem.    Australian of the Year Rosie Batty has used her appointment to good measure.   Locking perpertrators of DV away is often a case of action only after some serious incidence has occured.   Action in the form of consequences immediately after even a minor incident seems to work, to some extent.    In Qld, as single incident of reported DV is sufficient to have the perpetrator removed from the home or house and the target of the violence can then obtain a Restraning Order.   Locking perpertrators away seems make already hardened attitutes even worse.

Re the visability thing - I have left several FB sites due to the expressed hatred of women and ex partners.    One site, oriented around services and entitlments for ex Military personnel is particularly bad as there are regulat posts screaming hatred towards ex partners in particular.    The thing that concerns me is that the posts are often tolerated as others join in and the fools pump each other up.    When you exist in the company of a disfunctional peer group, attitudes do not change.   Prison for DV offenders only puts them in company of like minded people and is not likly to rehabilitate anyone.

Why stop there. If a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident where someone is injured or killed due to his or her negligence or intoxication, then whoever allowed him or her to pass the driving test should also face the same sentence. That will fix things.

DMaxer wrote:

---

Why stop there. If a person is involved in a motor vehicle accident where someone is injured or killed due to his or her negligence or intoxication, then whoever allowed him or her to pass the driving test should also face the same sentence. That will fix things.

---

do you really think like that? if a person passes their driving assessment it means they have reached a level of competence that they can operate a motor vehicle unsupervised they then become responsible for their actions.

a person applying for bail will go before a person who decides if a person should be granted bail, that person who makes that decision would have a lot of information before them as to the persons history, the prosecution can also object to bail. please explain how a person with a lengthy criminal history involving violence would get bail?

Why was this guy granted bail?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-23/man-charged-murdering-young-woman-forbes-faces-court/103756950

Childcare worker and mother Molly Ticehurst, 28, was found dead in a Forbes home early on Monday morning.

Her former partner Daniel Billings, 29, was later arrested more than an hour away in Fifield, north of Condobolin.

The Orange Local Court on Tuesday heard Mr Billings was on bail for charges including rape, stalking and intimidation when the alleged murder took place.

Court documents showed he was previously accused of raping Ms Ticehurst on three separate occasions, intimidating her on three separate occasions and wilfully damaging her property, including a car window and a pedestal fan.

The documents also showed Mr Billings was charged with aggravated cruelty against a 12-week-old dachshund puppy.

Magistrate David Day told the court Mr Billings was already accused of "three serious indictable offences" when the alleged murder took place.

He said the previous charges were in relation to the same woman found dead on Monday morning. 

 

 

Talkfest day today, I expect a word salad response full of platitudes, after the events fllowing eachways carryon and in the days following, his wezel words has showen that he is worse than the other bloke.

Where's the other 483 domestic violence support workers promised in 2021.

DMaxer wrote:

---

I read he was granted bail by a court registrar in an out of court hours bail hearing. One wonders whether his history was made available at that time or whether it was just a total mistake by all involved. In any event that poor women was badly let down.

---

if in my previous life as a driver of heavy vehicles, I could be/ was expected to know the rules regulation in all states and territories (in regards to my job) should I be in breach in any of those rules and regulation I could be fined or worst case find myself in jail, I would be held accountable so I avoided making errors/mistakes to the best of my ability, or paid the price. (ignorance is not an excuse/defense)

I wonder if the registrar lost any sleep over his decision to grant bail to a known violent offender and if the information was not available at the time, why would he grant bail without the information, could he have been pressured from above? (no place or resources to deal with offender?)

there have been women's refuges for as long as I can remember, if they had proper funding and were readily available maybe some of these women could remove them selves from the toxic environment, then we sort out how we(society)deal with the persons who think they can solve their issues with violence.

I think the first issues should be to identify who may be at risk and from who. information from schools, hospitals, doctors ect ect ect as done now for children at risk by family services may identify potential victims but it could be a very grey area as to how you determine who is at risk

the issues may not be as clear as some people think, I have heard stories of people going to the aide of a women who was supposedly at risk only to have the person they thought they were assisting turn on them.
if a women is at risk she almost has to go into a witness protection system because until we find away to deal with the offender (would not want to violate their rights) they could track them down an they could be at risk again, even worst if kids are involved.

as mentioned it becomes a talkfest, what we need is leadership/action from our leaders not talk.

if the federal government puts up cash to fund change then let hope the money is not used up by the bureaucracy an there is nothing left in the end to fund the changes.

unified approach!! they can't even agree on unified road rules how are they going to get something as complex as this to be unified even with all states of the same political persuasion.

I'm no expert, how can a talkfest change the problem.

It can't Gundog.

As John McEnroe said - "You can't be serious".

One could only expect a similar response from the Labor Caucus to that of the Alice Springs debacle. Just throw a heap of money at it and little changes.
It was only to be expected they would come up with such a dingbat policy of throw a billion dollars at it, implement it in 2025 and not NOW and give each Domestic Violence victim 5 grand each.

What is that for - funeral expenses?

Our local D.V. perpetrators and some of their partners will love this and rort it in the same way the baby bonus was rorted, the free $500 ACER laptop computers and incur around $24,000 of unpaid HECS debt and every other "government initiative" that fill the local poker machines in our region.

there was a former police officer by the name of Hurley on Q & A a few nights ago who tore shreds off the 3 weak pollies on the panel (Bolt sides of politics, one is no better than the other). He had attended 1,362 domestic violence events and had a 10 year old boy die in his arms from a D. V. attack. He tore strips off those goons and accused them of politiking recent events to their own advantage. He was right.

These are the people that have to be at the forefront of solutions and the drongos in Parliament have to finally start listening to those at the coalface. Alas, will that happen?

I believe emergency pendants and ankle bracelets are a start, but there must be more strategies available other than just putting 5 grand in the bank account of a victim - really????