First man jailed under new domestic abuse law.

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35192256

A man charged with the new coercive control law which was passed last December has been jailed for 2 years 4 months.
The new law is about control rather than violence within a relationship.

Gemma Doherty, who felt trapped in a relationship with Mohammad Anwwarr, had tried to commit suicide after months of his obsessive unreasonable behaviour.
She said she didn't mind the slaps as much as the control he had on what she ate, wore, dressed, spoke to, and  acted.

The new law which carries a maximum prison sentence of 5 years, was brought in to include such behaviours which do not amount to violence but still cause someone to fear violence will be used against them.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brute-jailed-under-historic-ruling-8003928

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The simple answer is there is no criminal law against it.  Disputes over children are handled by the custody courts, and those are in the civil division.  They have their own rules against use of children as chips in the dispute.  Of course these courts interact with criminal matters, but those are sorted out according to kinds of cases (assault vs. visitation, etc.).

Sexism is not a law, but a sentiment or motive behind certain laws and/or practices.  Anti-sexism is a sentiment that opposes needless gender preferences for one gender or the other.  Gender preferences variously favor one sex or the other: women get preferential treatment in custody matters; men get preferential treatment in employment.  The issues are so wide-ranging that the whole topic defies the traditional 'conservative'/'liberal' labels.

In domestic dispute matters, men are presumed to be stronger and more assertive, while women are thought to be demure and nurturing, and so police practices are slanted toward treating men more institutionally, and leaving children with the mother, undisturbed in the institutional sense.  These are gender biases.  So sexism plays a part in these domestic dispute cases.  When you start relying on these surveys, you are incorporating these sexist biases into your thinking.

That's the only way in which the subject has come up.

I think you missed the point Quill, but never mind.

Haha...I don't think so. I originated the point. Go back to the beginning.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
I'm not arguing. I'm stating what I know to be true. Not academic studies or some far flung hypothesis but what actually happens. Why should I need data? The victim, not a statistic, never a study, but a reality that some get to blow smoke out their arse pontificating whilst those of us at the coal face just get on with it.

Don't be silly, Nems.  If you are not arguing that more men commit domestic violence than women, that your whole position falls through.  Those are studies, so you certainly are using them to ground your views, not to mention your work.

Even if you are solely using your work experience involving domestic violence, then you must be relying upon police, who bring people to you.  Those police have just made a decision...the same decision as to who goes to jail and who does not.

If you want to argue the individual case, then don't make general statements based upon gender.  Don't summarize over who is doing what.  But that is not at all what you are doing.

You are wrong, not all cases are brought to us by the police.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't be silly, Nems.  If you are not arguing that more men commit domestic violence than women, that your whole position falls through.  Those are studies, so you certainly are using them to ground your views, not to mention your work.

Even if you are solely using your work experience involving domestic violence, then you must be relying upon police, who bring people to you.  Those police have just made a decision...the same decision as to who goes to jail and who does not.

If you want to argue the individual case, then don't make general statements based upon gender.  Don't summarize over who is doing what.  But that is not at all what you are doing.

You are wrong, not all cases are brought to us by the police.

Well that doesn't make me wrong unless there are no cases brought to you by police.  I would hazard a guess that a fair share of the cases come from the police.

You see how the system works?  Once any large department becomes involved, such as the police, and it has an institutional bias based upon extraneous considerations, you are then dealing with the extraneous considerations, not the basic purpose.  In this case, police departments are persuaded by economic considerations to incarcerate the male and bring the female to you, and thus males are counted as perps in that much greater proportion...when it has nothing to do with who was beating on whom.

Is that what happens in America?

Syl wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Men suffer psychological and emotional damage... their confidence and self esteem is eroded over time... leaving them feeling totally undermined, insecure, worthless etc... this emotional destruction makes them weak and incapable of mustering up the courage and strength needed to escape!!!

And who on here has said they don't?

Who else on here (apart from Raggs) has said that men do...?

Miffs2 wrote:Is that what happens in America?

Same as your country. No fibbing, now.

Misogyny is the same all over.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:Is that what happens in America?

Same as your country.  No fibbing, now.

Misogyny is the same all over.

So to sum up, you are asserting that what ever the rights and wrongs in a DV situation the male would be locked up or told to go? This being due to misogyny. So, in racist America, what happens if it's a white male and black female? Which would out, misogyny  or racism?

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Same as your country.  No fibbing, now.

Misogyny is the same all over.

So to sum up, you are asserting that what ever the rights and wrongs in a DV situation the male would be locked up or told to go? This being due to misogyny. So, in racist America, what happens if it's a white male and black female? Which would out, misogyny  or racism?

As much as I see your blood boiling, lol, you have stumbled onto a very good question.  Which discrimination imposes more?

With sexism, you are dealing with subliminal presumptions.  Racism is more on the surface, and takes more the form of conscious anger...anger that the norms are changing, anger that blacks are getting all the breaks (notwithstanding slavery), and anger that equality takes away the white man's status hierarchy in the social system.

It probably depends upon the responding officer's mind set, I would guess.  Is he an angry white male, as one finds in racism?  Or is he simply sympathetic and oblivious to the subliminal messaging that goes on in a sexist society?

Also, it likely depends in America upon whether this is a rural, southern community, or a larger, urban community, with a police force with up-to-date training.  Still, even with the up-to-date organizations, costs are costs, and it's just less complicated to put away the male.  Old habits are neigh on impossible to break.

So the beat goes on...it's still arrest the male, leave the woman to look after the children, and voilà...the statistics are infected even more with misinterpretation.  To avoid this problem we are going to have to find a source of data on domestic violence that has nothing to do with arrests.  Otherwise, our surveys will count what's more economical in police management, and have little to do with domestic violence measures.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Same as your country.  No fibbing, now.

Misogyny is the same all over.

So to sum up, you are asserting that what ever the rights and wrongs in a DV situation the male would be locked up or told to go? This being due to misogyny. So, in racist America, what happens if it's a white male and black female? Which would out, misogyny  or racism?

Good question Miffs.
Hope Quill can think up an answer.

He did and I read it.
Some of Quills posts sound like excerpts from an amalgamation of "Cathy come home" and "To kill a Mockingbird"... like what life was like in the bad old days.

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics was sourcing from the well respected National Crime Victimization Survey. The American Bar Association quotes the "84% of spousal abuse victims are women" (based on data collated 1998 - 2002 ) statistic on their website  specifically as a reference for legal practioners.

You are just trying to polish bullshit, Lex.  What is "well respected", anyway?  If you need to add that something is "well-respected," it likely means you don't have any confidence yourself, doesn't it?

Deemed reliable by the experts at the Bureau of Justice Statistics for one. From their website:

NCVS is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States...The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.

Deemed a sufficiently reliable statistic to be quoted on the official website of the American Bar:

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:
•Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
•84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
•Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
•50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

Original Quill wrote:You are just grabbing onto anything that sounds official.  The American Bar Association is even less reliable.  As a member, I can give you first hand testimony...the American Bar Association is a social/political organization.Instead trying to polish your source, why not follow my suggestion and determine if they are not just quoting arrest data.  From there, use your own head to make up your mind.  Arrest data are just a reflection of the patterns and practices of the police forces, which are driven by practical, not equitable considerations.  When you know that economics is driving the data you are observing, then the data are impure.

Again:"NCVS is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States." Not. Arrest. Data.

You are talking about actual physical violence domestic abuse...


The op is saying that non violent controlling behaviour constitutes abuse and is a crime!



Men suffer controlling behaviour from women on a massive scale!

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are just trying to polish bullshit, Lex.  What is "well respected", anyway?  If you need to add that something is "well-respected," it likely means you don't have any confidence yourself, doesn't it?

Deemed reliable by the experts at the Bureau of Justice Statistics for one. From their website:

NCVS is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States...The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.

Deemed a sufficiently reliable statistic to be quoted on the official website of the American Bar:

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:
•Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
•84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
•Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
•50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

Original Quill wrote:You are just grabbing onto anything that sounds official.  The American Bar Association is even less reliable.  As a member, I can give you first hand testimony...the American Bar Association is a social/political organization.Instead trying to polish your source, why not follow my suggestion and determine if they are not just quoting arrest data.  From there, use your own head to make up your mind.  Arrest data are just a reflection of the patterns and practices of the police forces, which are driven by practical, not equitable considerations.  When you know that economics is driving the data you are observing, then the data are impure.

Again:"NCVS is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States." Not. Arrest. Data.

Yes, it is arrest data.  What they are saying is it is the sample is taken from households, not that such households are nonaligned with criminal arrests.  Do you see in the next line it says, criminal victimization?  Those are criminal justice statistics, and not mere sociology data.  It is true that NCVS does survey individuals, but apart from confirming arrests, that is self-reporting.  Since the very nature of the domestic dispute involves disputed conclusions, any self-reporting is suspect...it's whose ox gets gored.

Once again, you are trying to polish your source.  It's not necessary.

The problem is not their illustriousness, but the flaw in their data.  There's no getting away from it.  Using post-arrest data incorporates the economic bias into the mix.  Suddenly the numbers are reflecting the economic practices of police departments, and not the true gender of domestic abusers.

Original Quill wrote:

@lex wrote:

Deemed reliable by the experts at the Bureau of Justice Statistics for one. From their website:

NCVS is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States...The NCVS provides the largest national forum for victims to describe the impact of crime and characteristics of violent offenders.

Deemed a sufficiently reliable statistic to be quoted on the official website of the American Bar:

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:
•Of the almost 3.5 million violent crimes committed against family members, 49% of these were crimes against spouses.
•84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.
•Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers
•50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims. Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.





Again:"NCVS is the nation's primary source of information on criminal victimization. Each year, data are obtained from a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households, comprising nearly 160,000 persons, on the frequency, characteristics, and consequences of criminal victimization in the United States." Not. Arrest. Data.

Yes, it is arrest data. What they are saying is it is the sample is taken from households, not that such households are nonaligned with criminal arrests. Do you see in the next line it says, criminal victimization? Those are criminal justice statistics, and not mere sociology data.

Once again, you are trying to polish your source.  It's not necessary.

The problem is not their illustriousness, but the flaw in their data.  There's no getting away from it.  Using post-arrest data incorporates the economic bias into the mix.  Suddenly the numbers are reflecting the economic practices of police departments, and not the true gender of domestic abusers.

One of the primary objectives of the NCVS is to gain data on the number and types of crimes not reported to the police... So, not arrest data.

@lex wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, it is arrest data.  What they are saying is it is the sample is taken from households, not that such households are nonaligned with criminal arrests.  Do you see in the next line it says, criminal victimization?  Those are criminal justice statistics, and not mere sociology data.

Once again, you are trying to polish your source.  It's not necessary.

The problem is not their illustriousness, but the flaw in their data.  There's no getting away from it.  Using post-arrest data incorporates the economic bias into the mix.  Suddenly the numbers are reflecting the economic practices of police departments, and not the true gender of domestic abusers.

One of the primary objectives of the NCVS is to gain data on the number and types of crimes not reported to the police... So, not arrest data.

But as I've point out, it's self-reporting Lex. A domestic dispute is disputed, by definition. So you are going from the frying pan into the fire.

At least with arrest records we are dealing with a disinterested party, who incidentally incorporates a bias into their data. With self-reporting, you incorporate the actual dispute. Like I said, frying pan into the fire. It would be interesting to do a gender analysis on the data and further research into perspective.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
So to sum up, you are asserting that what ever the rights and wrongs in a DV situation the male would be locked up or told to go? This being due to misogyny. So, in racist America, what happens if it's a white male and black female? Which would out, misogyny  or racism?

As much as I see your blood boiling, lol, you have stumbled onto a very good question.  Which discrimination imposes more?

With sexism, you are dealing with subliminal presumptions.  Racism is more on the surface, and takes more the form of conscious anger...anger that the norms are changing, anger that blacks are getting all the breaks (notwithstanding slavery), and anger that equality takes away the white man's status hierarchy in the social system.

It probably depends upon the responding officer's mind set, I would guess.  Is he an angry white male, as one finds in racism?  Or is he simply sympathetic and oblivious to the subliminal messaging that goes on in a sexist society?

Also, it likely depends in America upon whether this is a rural, southern community, or a larger, urban community, with a police force with up-to-date training.  Still, even with the up-to-date organizations, costs are costs, and it's just less complicated to put away the male.  Old habits are neigh on impossible to break.

So the beat goes on...it's still arrest the male, leave the woman to look after the children, and voilà...the statistics are infected even more with misinterpretation.  To avoid this problem we are going to have to find a source of data on domestic violence that has nothing to do with arrests.  Otherwise, our surveys will count what's more economical in police management, and have little to do with domestic violence measures.

Blood boiling. Hardly. To be honest though pig ignorance, rudeness and condescension do annoy me.
The trouble with some people on here is they are not as clever as they think they are.

Syl wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
So to sum up, you are asserting that what ever the rights and wrongs in a DV situation the male would be locked up or told to go? This being due to misogyny. So, in racist America, what happens if it's a white male and black female? Which would out, misogyny  or racism?

Good question Miffs.
Hope Quill can think up an answer.

He did and I read it.
Some of Quills posts sound like excerpts from an amalgamation of "Cathy come home" and "To kill a Mockingbird"... like what life was like in the bad old days.

Beautifully put Syl.

I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

Miffs2 wrote:I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

When I note a poster prefers to insult rather than debate I tend to ignore them....as in his case, so sorry Miffs I cant help you with that one.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As much as I see your blood boiling, lol, you have stumbled onto a very good question.  Which discrimination imposes more?

With sexism, you are dealing with subliminal presumptions.  Racism is more on the surface, and takes more the form of conscious anger...anger that the norms are changing, anger that blacks are getting all the breaks (notwithstanding slavery), and anger that equality takes away the white man's status hierarchy in the social system.

It probably depends upon the responding officer's mind set, I would guess.  Is he an angry white male, as one finds in racism?  Or is he simply sympathetic and oblivious to the subliminal messaging that goes on in a sexist society?

Also, it likely depends in America upon whether this is a rural, southern community, or a larger, urban community, with a police force with up-to-date training.  Still, even with the up-to-date organizations, costs are costs, and it's just less complicated to put away the male.  Old habits are neigh on impossible to break.

So the beat goes on...it's still arrest the male, leave the woman to look after the children, and voilà...the statistics are infected even more with misinterpretation.  To avoid this problem we are going to have to find a source of data on domestic violence that has nothing to do with arrests.  Otherwise, our surveys will count what's more economical in police management, and have little to do with domestic violence measures.

Blood boiling. Hardly. To be honest though pig ignorance, rudeness and condescension do annoy me.
The trouble with some people on here is they are not as clever as they think they are.

I don't know what you mean. However, that said, the whole area of statistics in the domestic violence area are suspect. Police arrests are tainted with bias. Asking the combatants is useless. I begin to see why 'Big Brother' in the Orwell novel, 1984, had a telescreen installed in everyone's living room. He needed the data.

Seriously, how could such data be obtained?

Miffs2 wrote:I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

Sometimes it's just wiser to walk away, when an exchange is going south. There's nothing to be gained by hurling invective.

Wolf is just smart, that's all. He sets a good example.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

Sometimes it's just wiser to walk away, when an exchange is going south.  There's nothing to be gained by hurling invective.

Wolf is just smart, that's all.  He sets a good example.

Not that smart as he got his facts wrong. It's also rude not to admit you're wrong.

I never admit I'm wrong, I NEVER am. lol

A wolf is a crafty surviver, I do not mind him running scared of a bashing from a forum chic who will tear him to pieces and embarrass him.

Remember Miffs, the only thing you are certain of from Wolfie is fllthy mouthed obscene diatribe.

Stormee wrote:I never admit I'm wrong, I NEVER am. lol

A wolf is a crafty surviver, I do not mind him running scared of a bashing from a forum chic who will tear him to pieces and embarrass him.

Remember Miffs, the only thing you are certain of from Wolfie is fllthy mouthed obscene diatribe.

As your post evidences, Stormee, you are one of the problems.  Rags as well, if slightly more quiet.

I admire Wolf's pattern.  Although he speaks tough Australian, he avoids infinity arguments, and the endless irrationality of people who just don't want to learn, let alone think.  Remember, trading insults is not discussion.  He may be showing you his back as a message.

I believe Wolf follows the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink...make sure you get your bridle and all your tack back.  

Original Quill wrote:

Stormee wrote:I never admit I'm wrong, I NEVER am. lol

A wolf is a crafty surviver, I do not mind him running scared of a bashing from a forum chic who will tear him to pieces and embarrass him.

Remember Miffs, the only thing you are certain of from Wolfie is fllthy mouthed obscene diatribe.

As your post evidences, Stormee, you are one of the problems.  Rags as well, if slightly more quiet.

I admire Wolf's pattern.  Although he speaks tough Australian, he avoids infinity arguments with didge, and the endless irrationality of people who just don't want to learn, let alone think.  Remember, trading insults is not discussion.  He may be showing you his back as a message.

I believe Wolf follows the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink...make sure you get your bridle and all your tack back.  

He still has a uncon'troll'abul filthy mouth.

Stormee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As your post evidences, Stormee, you are one of the problems.  Rags as well, if slightly more quiet.

I admire Wolf's pattern.  Although he speaks tough Australian, he avoids infinity arguments with didge, and the endless irrationality of people who just don't want to learn, let alone think.  Remember, trading insults is not discussion.  He may be showing you his back as a message.

I believe Wolf follows the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink...make sure you get your bridle and all your tack back.  

He still has a uncon'troll'abul filthy mouth.

He's an Ozzie. They don't sip tea and nibble on cucumber sandwiches, fgs. In certain towns down there that's pillow talk wi' yer galfriend.

Elevate your sights and look at his actions, not words.

Original Quill wrote:

Stormee wrote:I never admit I'm wrong, I NEVER am. lol

A wolf is a crafty surviver, I do not mind him running scared of a bashing from a forum chic who will tear him to pieces and embarrass him.

Remember Miffs, the only thing you are certain of from Wolfie is fllthy mouthed obscene diatribe.

As your post evidences, Stormee, you are one of the problems.  Rags as well, if slightly more quiet.

I admire Wolf's pattern.  Although he speaks tough Australian, he avoids infinity arguments, and the endless irrationality of people who just don't want to learn, let alone think.  Remember, trading insults is not discussion.  He may be showing you his back as a message.

I believe Wolf follows the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink...make sure you get your bridle and all your tack back.  

You're the problem, not me. Your hero-worship of Wolfman is a bit embarassing really. He avoids arguments because he just runs away after he's hurled some abuse around or got something wrong. There's nothing admirable about that, and the fact that you admire such behaviour says a lot about you - and not in a good way.

Original Quill wrote:

Stormee wrote:

He still has a uncon'troll'abul filthy mouth.

He's an Ozzie.  They don't sip tea and nibble on cucumber sandwiches, fgs.  In certain towns down there that's pillow talk wi' yer galfriend.  

Elevate your sights and look at his actions, not words.

Are you saying that Aussies are loud-mouthed, vulgar morons?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As your post evidences, Stormee, you are one of the problems.  Rags as well, if slightly more quiet.

I admire Wolf's pattern.  Although he speaks tough Australian, he avoids infinity arguments, and the endless irrationality of people who just don't want to learn, let alone think.  Remember, trading insults is not discussion.  He may be showing you his back as a message.

I believe Wolf follows the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink...make sure you get your bridle and all your tack back.  

You're the problem, not me. Your hero-worship of Wolfman is a bit embarassing really. He avoids arguments because he just runs away after he's hurled some abuse around or got something wrong. There's nothing admirable about that, and the fact that you admire such behaviour says a lot about you - and not in a good way.

I think you've already admitted that you don't read certain posts with your adversaries. Isn't that the same thing? The only difference between you and wolf, is you show your antagonisms in your next post. He shows his wisdom in his silence.

Actually, wolf is a heavy hitter, particularly when he is discussing scientific, particularly agriculture and animal issues, as well as climate change and environmental issues. I believe his degree is in Animal Science.

But like you say, you're not reading.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He's an Ozzie.  They don't sip tea and nibble on cucumber sandwiches, fgs.  In certain towns down there that's pillow talk wi' yer galfriend.  

Elevate your sights and look at his actions, not words.

Are you saying that Aussies are loud-mouthed, vulgar morons?

I'm saying that they speak and live differently. You have added the judgments...very typical.

I RECKON it's much better to be considered "loud mouthed" and "vulgar" any day -- when we all know it's not true, anyways...

WHEN ONE'S attackers are those idiotic, close minded, ignorant and poorly educated lying shrews the likes of Ragg's and her equally demented chum Syl..

FASCIST, racist, xenophobic couple of misandrists, both of them be !

I'd hate to be loud-mouthed and vulgar. People like that have no decorum, and I avoid them.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're the problem, not me. Your hero-worship of Wolfman is a bit embarassing really. He avoids arguments because he just runs away after he's hurled some abuse around or got something wrong. There's nothing admirable about that, and the fact that you admire such behaviour says a lot about you - and not in a good way.

I think you've already admitted that you don't read certain posts with your adversaries.  Isn't that the same thing?  The only difference between you and wolf, is you show your antagonisms in your next post.  He shows his wisdom in his silence.

Actually, wolf is a heavy hitter, particularly when he is discussing scientific, particularly agriculture and animal issues, as well as climate change and environmental issues.  I believe his degree is in Animal Science.

But like you say, you're not reading.

Where did I admit such a thing? Your hero-worship is a bit pukey you know. Maybe you fancy him.

Stormee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As your post evidences, Stormee, you are one of the problems.  Rags as well, if slightly more quiet.

I admire Wolf's pattern.  Although he speaks tough Australian, he avoids infinity arguments with didge, and the endless irrationality of people who just don't want to learn, let alone think.  Remember, trading insults is not discussion.  He may be showing you his back as a message.

I believe Wolf follows the old adage: you can lead a horse to water, but if they don't want to drink...make sure you get your bridle and all your tack back.  

He still has a uncon'troll'abul filthy mouth.

YOU'RE THE LAST fool that has any right to complain about anyone on here, Stormee !!!

YOU odious, racist, nazi-minded poor excuse for a weasel's arsehole..

I'M NOT even one-tenth as filthy mouthed as you, you fascist doltish misanthrope !

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I RECKON it's much better to be considered "loud mouthed" and "vulgar" any day -- when we all know it's not true, anyways...

WHEN ONE'S attackers are those idiotic, close minded, ignorant and poorly educated lying shrews the likes of Ragg's and her equally demented chum Syl..

FASCIST, racist, xenophobic couple of misandrists, both of them be !

When the likes of you appreciate my posts....I will know without doubt it's time to unplug the laptop.
Now go and try to think up some new insults....you are repeating yourself lately.

Stormee wrote:I never admit I'm wrong, I NEVER am. lol

A wolf is a crafty surviver, I do not mind him running scared of a bashing from a forum chic who will tear him to pieces and embarrass him.

Remember Miffs, the only thing you are certain of from Wolfie is fllthy mouthed obscene diatribe.

WE ALL know that you're new here, moronic one...

BUT ASK anyone around here, and they will tell you that there hasn't been anyone on here as yet, that I'm scared of..



YOU thick piece of vacuous shite.

Syl wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I RECKON it's much better to be considered "loud mouthed" and "vulgar" any day -- when we all know it's not true, anyways...

WHEN ONE'S attackers are those idiotic, close minded, ignorant and poorly educated lying shrews the likes of Ragg's and her equally demented chum Syl..

FASCIST, racist, xenophobic couple of misandrists, both of them be !

When the likes of you appreciate my posts....I will know without doubt it's time to unplug the laptop.
Now go and try to think up some new insults....you are repeating yourself lately.

GO FUCK yourself, you senile old cow...
(That's a new one for you, today..).)

NOBODY appreciates your imbecilc posts for one simple reason -- they're full of lies and exaggerations..

COME BACK with some truth to back your gross exaggerations, and you may earn some rsepect..

THEY SAY you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep -- the fact that your cheer squad on here consists of this forums 3 other leading racist fascists, says more than enough about you !

Aussies eh? Yuk.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Syl wrote:

When the likes of you appreciate my posts....I will know without doubt it's time to unplug the laptop.
Now go and try to think up some new insults....you are repeating yourself lately.

GO FUCK yourself, you senile old cow...
(That's a new one for you, today..).)

NOBODY appreciates your imbecilc posts for one simple reason  --  they're full of lies and exaggerations..

COME BACK with some truth to back your gross exaggerations, and you may earn some rsepect..

THEY SAY you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep --  the fact that your cheer squad on here consists of this forums 3 other leading racist fascists, says more than enough about you !

Oh dear....seems like I kicked your arse elsewhere and you have never gotten over it.
Forum creeps like you are 10 a penny.....and you are not even an original forum creep...just a pathetic wannabe.
Now piss off.....I have given you all the time I intend to.

Miffs2 wrote:
I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

WHAT I THINK is that you're proving yourself a bigger idiot day by day, nems...

Are you forgetting there is a big difference between the main countries on here..

THOUGH, why you think anyone would want to take any notice of the lies you costantly spout on here, is beyond rational comprehension..

INTENT on derailing this thread are you, you brain dead grub ?

Raggamuffin wrote:Aussies eh? Yuk.

Kylies nice.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

WHAT I THINK is that you're proving yourself a bigger idiot day by day, nems...

Are you forgetting there is a big difference between the main countries on here..

THOUGH, why you think anyone would want to take any notice of the lies you costantly spout on here, is beyond rational comprehension..

INTENT on derailing this thread are you, you brain dead grub ?

There certainly is a big difference. Most of the Brits on here are courteous and intelligent, and the Aussies are rude, stupid, and ignorant.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think you've already admitted that you don't read certain posts with your adversaries.  Isn't that the same thing?  The only difference between you and wolf, is you show your antagonisms in your next post.  He shows his wisdom in his silence.

Actually, wolf is a heavy hitter, particularly when he is discussing scientific, particularly agriculture and animal issues, as well as climate change and environmental issues.  I believe his degree is in Animal Science.

But like you say, you're not reading.

Where did I admit such a thing?

You admitted it when you were doing your best to insult me.  You said that you read the first few words of my posts, and if you don't like it, you refuse to read on.  But ahah...you let slip that much of what is written you do not read.

That explains a lot about your circular reasoning...and your repetitive arguments.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Where did I admit such a thing?

You admitted it when you were doing your best to insult me.  You said that you read the first few words of my posts, and if you don't like it, you refuse to read on.  But ahah...you let slip that much of what is written you do not read.

That explains a lot about your circular reasoning...and your repetitive arguments.

I said no such thing. I like being circular - it gets you running around in circles chasing your tail.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

Sometimes it's just wiser to walk away, when an exchange is going south.  There's nothing to be gained by hurling invective.

Wolf is just smart, that's all.  He sets a good example.

No he doesn't, he is rude and not even able to admit when he is wrong. You enabling his behaviour by always making excuses for him is doing him any favours. I am surprised you don't realise that .

Stormee wrote:I never admit I'm wrong, I NEVER am. lol

A wolf is a crafty surviver, I do not mind him running scared of a bashing from a forum chic who will tear him to pieces and embarrass him.

Remember Miffs, the only thing you are certain of from Wolfie is fllthy mouthed obscene diatribe.

Point taken

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


WHAT I THINK is that you're proving yourself a bigger idiot day by day, nems...

Are you forgetting there is a big difference between the main countries on here..

THOUGH, why you think anyone would want to take any notice of the lies you costantly spout on here, is beyond rational comprehension..

INTENT on derailing this thread are you, you brain dead grub ?

There certainly is a big difference. Most of the Brits on here are courteous and intelligent, and the Aussies are rude, stupid, and ignorant.

I'm tempted to say that most of the Brits on here are arrogant and elitist, but that's not true. However, it does describe a common trait with some types of Brits.

Yes Bee, I did notice that The gang's all here... Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed. It's what I call the 'conservative gang', or the short-bus posse. Lol.

Oh well, so ends the day of reasonable discussion.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You admitted it when you were doing your best to insult me.  You said that you read the first few words of my posts, and if you don't like it, you refuse to read on.  But ahah...you let slip that much of what is written you do not read.

That explains a lot about your circular reasoning...and your repetitive arguments.

I said no such thing. I like being circular - it gets you running around in circles chasing your tail.

Well, a conservative has nothing better to do. After all, they sure ain't progressing.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I RECKON it's much better to be considered "loud mouthed" and "vulgar" any day -- when we all know it's not true, anyways...

WHEN ONE'S attackers are those idiotic, close minded, ignorant and poorly educated lying shrews the likes of Ragg's and her equally demented chum Syl..

FASCIST, racist, xenophobic couple of misandrists, both of them be !

Poorly educated?! You are the one who got your facts wrong. You attacked me for no reason. If you are not man enough to admit you were wrong, that's one thing but to accuse others of attacking when you are the worst culprit just makes you look like a complete fool.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:
I have had a few cups of tea and still no word from Wolfie...
Does this mean he hasn't seen my post ...
Or is too much of a blow hard to admit I am right and he is wrong.

What do we think peeps?

WHAT I THINK is that you're proving yourself a bigger idiot day by day, nems...

Are you forgetting there is a big difference between the main countries on here..

THOUGH, why you think anyone would want to take any notice of the lies you costantly spout on here, is beyond rational comprehension..

INTENT on derailing this thread are you, you brain dead grub ?

Don't be stupid, I waited until you had been online to make that comment. 
I'm not wasting any more time on you. Stupid people like you are boring. You are a no mark.

Miffs2 wrote: but to accuse others of attacking when you are the worst culprit just makes you look like a complete fool.

In all honesty, I believe this all started with you ripping into Wolf, Nems. Had you left well-enough alone, we would be elsewhere.

But what fun we are having, eh?