MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.


Filed under: Domestic Violence,General,Law & Courts — Downunder @ 2:32 pm Sun 27th October 2013

Anyone heard of ODARA.

New Zealand Police are now using the ‘Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment’ ODARA for short, imported from Canada.

ODARO is a predictive assessment to determine the likelyhood of a person deemed to have assaulted their partner assaulting them again. The results rank a person on a scale of 0 – 13, 13 being most likely to assault their partner again.

From what I have read so far there is no indication of when the system is used or exactly how the assessment is made or whether it has been modified in anyway from the original Candaian model.

What does concern me is the suggestion that the assessment may be an automatic includion in a bail hearing. Why bother having a bail hearing before a judge if a man’s liberty is determined by a pimply faced kid ticking boxes which pre-determines that he is already guilty of the offence and might offend again. It fact why bother paying for a public defender when it is already a forgone conclusion according to this systematic assessment.

This could be an interesting discussion if we could find out a little more about it.



    Comment by Ted — Sun 27th October 2013 @ 4:06 pm

  2. ODARA is in essence a simplified version of VRAG. Some comments about VRAG:

    Violent Offenders APPRAISING AND MANAGING RISK second edition by Vernon L. QuinseyGrant T. HarrisMarnie E. RiceCatherine A. Cormier.

    These types of assessments are based on an assumed complete and accurate set of facts and will show better reliability than a guess based only on intuition or professional skills and experience. (If this is surprising, it just says that even professionals are not very good at detecting when they are being lied to. Even professionals need to base their opinion on a complete set of facts.)

    Unfortunately, a complete and accurate set of facts is usually unavailable, even if you have a complete file. Many crimes may not have been pinned down to the correct offender, or may not have even been reported to police. Many violent offenders move around frequently, to make it much harder for professionals to obtain complete data about them, or just move on when one area gets too hot for them.)

    Unfortunately, these tick the box assessments are often populated with hearsay, perhaps supplied maliciously to the police. Rubbish in gives rubbish out, thus probably a guaranteed breach of natural justice. The only way to protect against such manipulation, would be to enforce accountability when damaging manipulation had occurred. This never seems to happen, perhaps most men aren’t annoyed by these breaches of natural justice???

    Lets be practical. ODARA was based on only 600 case studies, but is supposedly aimed at warning about risk of serious assault or murder. These are behaviours that are infrequent in the total population, thus to include sufficient cases to accurately reflect such cases, would require many tens of thousands of cases. I suspect that the time duration of the research may also have been less than desirable, to achieve any degree of hope to be reliable.

    VRAG claimed 70 to 80% reliability when based on correct and complete input data. But this is with a rather loose definition of success. If you were jailed for a week on the basis of a manipulated assessment, you wouldn’t have any hope of 20 % failure of reliability, you would be guaranteed that the test had failed due to the faulty data that it was based on.

    Due to the limited sample on which it is based, ODARA couldn’t hope to match the reliability of VRAG. When used in field, without access to reliable and complete data, then reliability is lost almost completely. It all comes back to common sense and how rare it is.

    Cheers, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Sun 27th October 2013 @ 10:31 pm

  3. Murray, your VRAG link comes back to your own comment. If you post the link in another comment I’ll fix it.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 7:03 am

  4. This ODARA sounds like a document used against me in the family court provided by the New Zealand Police. It was a document used by the police to issue me with a trespass order. It was not shown to me until I requested a copy from them. The information contained showed me to be a violent offender, a drug user and an abuser of alcohol. This document was later found to have been shown to LFC by my ex (the coppers had given her a copy) who passed it to the psych to do my report. It cost me lots of $ and months to fight, the court refused to listen or accept any form of evidence proving I do not abuse any substances and am non violent. I did speak to the officer that filled out the document several months later, to find the SHE had just put down the answers to the questions she asked my ex. These forms rely on information given to the person asking the questions. And the told me officer they have been instructed talk to the female at any incident and to complete the form. To her knowledge (at the time)she had never known one of these forms been filled out with a man answering the questions. These are just a another way to hang you in a different format.

    Comment by roo — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 7:10 am

  5. Reading through the link that Ted supplied,

    The ODARA was developed and tested only for male-to-female domestic assaults, and
    only among current or former cohabiting or marital relationships. It is currently being
    tested in other relationships.

    A question arises here. Are the New Zealand Police using the same data gathering questions and are they applying it in the same circumstances?

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 7:12 am

  6. It is being talked up here on a New Zealand domestic violence site.


    ODARA is an internationally recognised, evidence-based risk assessment tool that has been through scientific development, testing and validation. The ODARA score has been used evidentially in Canada in their criminal courts.

    Apparently this website is quoting the results of the implementation of ODARA in New Zealand.

    A higher ODARA score (out of 13) predicts a higher risk of recidivism, and that further offending will happen sooner, more frequently and be more severe. When the tool was used where it was developed in Canada, only 7% of people screened had a risk score of 7 and higher — meaning they have a 70% or greater risk of reoffending.

    In the first three months of the use of ODARA in NZ, 40% of people screened were scored 7 or higher.

    There is clearly an alarming difference between New Zealand and Canada in the proportion of serious, violent domestic abuse offenders.

    There is an alegation here that New Zealand men are considerably more violent than Canadian men according to the use of ODARA.

    Are we using the same questions such as “Victim has a biological child from a previous partner”.

    Did the sample of cases in NZ include more blended families than the sample of Canadian families?
    Was this sample New Zealand wide or taken from trial in a particular geographical area?

    According to Jane Drumm,

    ‘Shine and other specialist, frontline family violence service providers are simply not resourced to respond to the huge amounts of serious violence that we see.’

    Is someone talking this up for funding perhaps?

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 7:25 am

  7. This from Police Ten One

    From July to September, staff attending family violence incidents used the ODARA (Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment) tool in 3199 cases where there had been intimate partner violence. This includes violence in heterosexual and same sex relationships, dating violence, male on female violence and female on male violence.

    I wonder who this independant researcher is?

    An independent researcher is now auditing the data to check it for accuracy. ‘It must be robust because we want to use it in courts from next year to oppose bail, at sentencing and at parole hearings,’ she says. ‘We have to be satisfied our data has been through appropriate auditing to ensure its predictive accuracy in light of the challenges that will come from defence counsel.’

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 8:08 am

  8. Thanks for your post Roo. If this document gains unwarranted credibility in the court system, as you say, it will be a nightmare in the Family Court. Where decisions about your furture are based on a junior police officer ticking boxes.

    That sounds like a really robust system.

    If anyone else has had an ODARA form turn up in their Family Court case please put a post up here.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 8:19 am

  9. Also don’t lose sight of the fact – that the more REPORTS and DATA police are made to collect – this directly reduces the number of reports being taken – Ie – a great tool for govt to claim – when and where it suits – that there has been a decline in reported offending…….we are seeing this across the board – its now taking so much longer for officers to collect burglary report information than it did ten years ago,, go to a police station and see the numbers of people who WANT TO REPORT an offence, but walk out because they dont have the time to wait while the SOLE civilian takes an hour to complete one complaint…….

    Detectives are now being demanded to write tickets – four stops per hour and at least ONE TICKET per hour must be written – this is not about crime investigation or traffic safety = its purely about REVENUE COLLECTION…….

    And you are right downunder – this entire new Data mining option detailed above -concerning Domestic Violence – will just be yet another tactic to be used to ensure there is sufficient evidence to make one parent or both PAY Child Support ……. start thinking PLURAL here PARENTS – because now they can come after BOTH of you for the Child Support LIVING ALLOWANCE……..Currently labelling ONE parent as the Domestic Violence offender ( which destroys your credibility and reputation so you are not considered or heard into the future ) this has worked well to date to ensure compliance…….by ONE parent – but now they want BOTH to PAY………Increase the PENALTY regime and the Debt borrowing and the property seizure ……..thats the business plan – start understanding this…….. changes to the marriage laws are simply inserted to ensure ALL PARENTS – gay or straight are in the net.

    Comment by hornet — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 8:59 am

  10. Dear Downunder, thanks very much for your help. The link is on menz, search for VRAG and it is at the bottom of the page. Late at night and I was more asleep than awake…

    I have heard psychologists disparagingly referred to as machines for turning hearsay into evidence. I have seen this in familycaught$ and it was effective. Eighteen months later the man escaped NZ without a passport, using just his car (by putting a vacuum cleaner pipe on the exhaust pipe). I am still wondering what impact all of this will be having on the quality of upbringing that this child receives? Perhaps very little impact, as the mother has decided not to tell the son…… Who is deluding who? Anyway, delusions sounds so psychotic, nobody would leave a young child in the sole care of a psychotic mother?

    It seems that ODARA is intended to be a lower cost version of the same.


    Comment by Murray Bacon — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 9:07 am

  11. Murray, the Psychologist that prepared two reports on my daughter – detailing the SEVERE psychological harm the mothers Parental Alienation was causing the child = and which has damaged the child – and which the family court has DONE NOTHING ABOUT – admitted to me personally – the system KNOWS THIS – and they adopt the Ambulance at the bottom of the cliff mentality – ……… I was TOLD to wait = wait watch and observe while the system deliberately allows harm to my child – and then when SHE IS OLDER – its back on me to pick up the pieces….. this is how the system – these corrupt lawyers making huge money from good parents – allow CONFLICT to escalate – actually they ENFLAME CONFLICT so it gets worse and they make more money…… this is the reality of this stinking system and it needs to be called out for what it is……no more crap = put the onus on those making the bucks to explain why they allow deliberate harm to be caused to CHILDREN…… Vicarious Liability = standing around watching, knowing and DOING NOTHING to protect children makes them liable – PARTIES – Section 66 Crimes Act – Does or OMITS an act or who – aids abets incites or procures the offence is a party to the offence of CHILD abuse.

    Comment by hornet — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 9:58 am

  12. #11 hornet,

    I was TOLD to wait = wait watch and observe while the system deliberately allows harm to my child – and then when SHE IS OLDER – its back on me to pick up the pieces”¦

    Such an approach would be the most stupid thing and the most relationship vandalistic thing it is possible to do.

    Unfortunately, I have seen this many times and heard many fathers speaking of this many times. I have heard women speaking of it too.

    My own experience includes it too. I am now discovering that it can take a lot longer to sort these situations, than I would have ever expected.

    Best regards, MurrayBacon.

    Comment by Murray Bacon — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 10:40 am

  13. So why would a system deliberately refuse to help prevent PARENTAL ALIENATION – and all the associated behavior which causes so much conflict between separated parents? the only reason – is to ensure it thrives so CONFLICT thrives. There is no other logical outcome.

    You have behavior – horrendous behavior which is allowed to go unchecked, unchallenged and is harming kids and the Family court from my direct experience – REFUSES to address it – rather as an example – my daughters own lawyer – lawyer for child stated to me when I asked him to intervene and help his client – NOT MY JOB – IM ONLY HERE to oversee PROCESS……..are you kidding me – this man is representing kids and he is quite happy sitting back watching them be deliberately harmed – and he does not feel ONE ounce of requirement to intervene – ask the party to desist……nothing….. that is criminal in my mind, and it goes totally against the PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT………

    So do some of these people need to be taken to task – made to be accountable – if not nothing will change……not one thing….

    Comment by hornet — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 11:26 am

  14. Dear hornet,

    So why would a system deliberately refuse to help prevent PARENTAL ALIENATION?

    Sometimes it is easier to understand, if we ask the question the other way around.

    So why would a system [REMOVED deliberately refuse to] help prevent PARENTAL ALIENATION?
    So why would a system [——————————] help prevent PARENTAL ALIENATION?

    There is no incentive given in the employment contracts of familycaught$ legal workers (judges or lawyers), to act consistently with the Care of Children Act.

    On the contrary, it is in their financial interest to act consistently contrary to the best interests of children and/or vulnerable parties, as this spins out cases allowing the maximum personal financial returns.

    If you were dropped into such a system and your extra overseas holiday depends on manipulation, wouldn’t you do the same things too?

    Remember also that these people have no training at all in areas such as child development and children’s interests. Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.

    If you heard a carless child asking for something and your wife asking [bitching] for a new car, what would you do?

    These are classical textbook examples of conflicts of interest. As we leave them unmanaged and unsupervised, they are textbook examples of why conflicts of interest must be competently managed.

    These people are ‘artless thieves.

    MurrayBacon – relentless axe murderer.

    Comment by Murray Bacon — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 11:47 am

  15. Murray, we are now getting to the crux of ALL PARENTS concern – we all enter into the system with an EXPECTATION that they will adhere to the care of children act – because every parent would hope the system would put children first – but as we find out after years of time wasted and much expense – this is NOT happening at all – as you eloquently explain above.

    So this is my concern – is the very family court system answerable to the Consumer affairs department – for OFFERING a service which they NEVER deliver on??? I believe they are – because everyone enters the system – diligently seeking HELP – which the family court offers, and as parents – we would expect as a minimum that they would protect children from HARM – which they Do not, and lastly we enter the system expecting our rights to time with our own kids to be granted and then enforced- only to find that is NOT the case at all.

    So the entire system we go to got help, which offers help – is NOT HELPING at all, is not delivering on the service it offers…..that is a FALSE PRETENCE .

    240Obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception

    (1)Every one is guilty of obtaining by deception or causing loss by deception who, by any deception and without claim of right,-
    (a)obtains ownership or possession of, or control over, any property, or any privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration, directly or indirectly; or
    (b)in incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
    (c)induces or causes any other person to deliver over, execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter any document or thing capable of being used to derive a pecuniary advantage; or
    (d)causes loss to any other person.
    (2)In this section, deception means-
    (a)a false representation, whether oral, documentary, or by conduct, where the person making the representation intends to deceive any other person and-
    (i)knows that it is false in a material particular; or
    (ii)is reckless as to whether it is false in a material particular; or
    (b)an omission to disclose a material particular, with intent to deceive any person, in circumstances where there is a duty to disclose it; or
    (c)a fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with intent to deceive any person.

    Comment by hornet — Mon 28th October 2013 @ 2:16 pm

  16. #16. It’s a sham the whole damn thing-and there is something malevolent in our society that allows it to continue. The ex has friends that quietly say to me that they are concerned about what she says to the kids about me, and concerned about some of the attitudes and beliefs the children have. I say-help me put a stop to this-hlep me to prove to the court that this is going on. Oh no-don’t want to get involved-‘it’s not really that bad” Try , my friends to subpoena somebody who is unwilling to testify or be cross exaamined, and then see what you think of the system.
    It would seem that the standards i am held to, and asked to upkeep are the product of a bar that no normal human being can attain. One can become frightened to be yourslef in any way, in fromt of your children, and one can find oneself acting like a watered down “no personality” version of yourself. Many moons ago in this forum somebody suggested i give up the fight as i would lose the whole way through. I was disgusted at this and thought they were weak. Unfortunately i know that they were right

    Comment by shafted — Tue 29th October 2013 @ 2:29 pm

  17. One could just imagine how handy this ‘assessment tool’ would be in the hands of a radical feminist leso cop.

    Comment by Ian Andersongin — Tue 29th October 2013 @ 2:38 pm

  18. Shafted – isnt it a disgrace that we all end up here in this mess – we have not seen our daugher for ONE and a HALF years now – deliberate breaches of court orders which NO ONE will help enforce – so I can see why so many good parents are FORCED to take the law into their own hands – and forever be labelled VIOLENT and AGGRESSIVE – if the system did its job they never would be forced down that track……..

    Sadly as I reflect on not spending time with my own child, a kid I love dearly – a kid who really enjoyed her time with us, but has been DELIBERATELY DEPRIVED time with us by a corrupted system – its sad for me to admit, that my life is “easier” but certainly NOT BETTER for not seeing her – not having to deal with the emotional blackmail, double standards and gold plated parenting skills – expected of us, by the system… you rightly say – NO PARENT – NO HUMAN being could be held to these standards at every visitation.

    No human can be expected NOT TO REACT – to the provocation and intimidation the system allows – the persecution of your character and reputation – baiting you at every opportunity to react – keep poking a dog with a stick and one day that dog is going to get you………and bite hard………

    And if you do try and enforce some discipline – set some values on your kids when they are in your care – your an abuser, a horrible parent – blah blah blah……

    So yes you are in a NO WIN situation – only when the kids are older will you have the time to reflect honestly with them, to explain what corruption you were forced to endure – thats what the system wants – Deliberately deprive you of seeing your kids, and when you are financially exhausted and have paid support through to 19 years – ONLYT THEN will they let you have some time with them – all too late of course – because by then the kid is an emotional wreck – and will probably end up dependent on drugs or alcohol to deal with the abuse they were forced to endure – because the system refused to protect them – so the kids ends up a customer of the next part of the system – having to pay for health care and psychological treatment……..

    Comment by hornet — Tue 29th October 2013 @ 3:01 pm

  19. Oh forgot to mention – the MALEVOLENCE in society – is that the system is now more protective of REVENUE collection than in protecting the rights of parents, protecting kids from harm and from adhering to the laws of natural justice and the bill of rights – that is the malevolence in society today – Power and money trump – Human Values and liberties.

    Comment by hornet — Tue 29th October 2013 @ 3:04 pm

  20. #19 and #20. Yep. I think i mentioned that my son has been living with us for the past year. First 5 months i claimed nothing. After 5 months claimed child support. Was awarded $500 per month. This represents a reduction in what i pay. Past few weeks i have noticed my 15 year old daughter ignoring me and being quite stroppy. Wondered what it was about. Last night i get incoming that she thinks it is UNFAIR that i am getting child support and how could i etc.Sticks in the throat when she is infinitely better off than i. I imagine these views have been shared with the child. I refuse to discuss such issues with a 15 year old on the basis that the truth will come out in the end. I have paid every cent of every assessment since the beginning of time, and up until fairly recently contributed over and above that amount, until i was admin reviewed, at which stage i was royally porked by the sytem. At that point i snapped the wallet shut.
    Yes, the provocation Hornet. I am pilloried around town by the ex, about every facet of my character and behaviour, whether real or imagined. When i say “no” or insist on adhereance to the parenting order, i am told that i am “controlling and abusive” and threatened with the police (there is a B….s…. protection order against me.) My “abuse” litlerally amounts to statements by email such as “failure to adhere to the terms of the order gives me little option other than to seek admonishment through the courts’. The courts have made enforcement of basic parenting rights, beyond the affordability of most mortals. Government then applauds itself on a reduction of cases before the courts, for such matters.
    As a father, i am not informed of health related issues or schooling and the like. When i suggest that one of my children has a weight problem, i am advised that that represents a personal attack on the mother.
    We rant in here. I believe we do so because we want to be heard. No one is listening.

    Comment by shafted — Wed 30th October 2013 @ 8:26 am

  21. Shafted – the denial of facts is deliberate – always remember this – Plausible Deniabiity . Hear no evil, see no evil, hear no evil. This is the defensive tactic of organisations who want to carry on corruptly.

    I have also been your shoes – doing more – sadly returns less – you are damned if you do and damned if you dont – again this is the tactic to destroy you, and turn all good you do – into bad. So you will never win. Again we all experience the same cycle of crap – a known and deliberate cycle forced on us by the system.

    You are correct as I have learnt the hard way – no amount of money will ever HELP you – the resistance to stopping you having quality time with your own kids just ramps up accordingly – until you run out of cash.

    Same with protecting you as a parent from Attacks on your credibility, character and reputation – when there is NO consequence for doing so – it will continue forever.

    Same for the deliberate harm the courts allow to be inflicted on kids – they refuse to address all the horrendous behavios – of parental alienation – which keeps conflict alive and all the lawyers in a job. Cant fix that problem – work would dry up = no they accepting that kids and parents will be harmed as a result – but money is more important – as Murray bacon stated – we have a direct conflict of interest in the legal system.

    And lastly – right on the money – NO PARENT will ever have the money, time, to challenge the system or the patience, parenting skills expected of them by this system. Thats why as I have said previously we see so many in frustration take the law into their own hands – again a reaction the system knows about and encourages……..

    And we wonder why we have such a high incidence of domestic violence and child abuse – the justice system currently encourages it…….facilitates it and is a party to it…….and thats what needs to be exposed…..

    Comment by hornet — Wed 30th October 2013 @ 9:20 am

  22. shafted – flick me an email – have some info for you….

    Comment by hornet — Wed 30th October 2013 @ 9:29 am

  23. Hornet-lost your address. Have you still got my number?

    Comment by shafted — Wed 30th October 2013 @ 9:51 am

  24. Update on Odara

    Police are refusing to release new domestic violence statistics because the results are horrific and would embarrass the Government in election year, Women’s Refuge and the Green Party say.

    Comment by Downunder — Mon 19th May 2014 @ 3:45 pm

  25. Maybe the police are wanting to check for themselves whether the ODARA questionaire has any value? If so, then it is good to see the police trying to take a professional approach to statistics? (There is a lot of concern that police are skilful manipulators of statistics, particularly where they have an impact onto their bonuses, agreed under output agreements.)

    So it could be that the figures would have reduced bonuses and funding?
    ODARA has poor predictive value, at best ie when all the questions have been answered accurately. If the the answers are suspect, then it is valueless.

    Police conducted a test run of ODARA against historic incidents to measure its accuracy and then conducted live use on major domestic violence incidents since at least late 2012. But they will not hand over any of that data.

    “We’re not being mischievous,” Women’s Refuge spokeswoman Kiri Hannifin said.

    “We just want to know the common areas where men score highly on, so we can work with women to keep them safe and put our resources into that area.

    “It’s disappointing that it’s been seven months [since the briefing] when domestic violence is such a significant problem in New Zealand.”

    Even draft data would help, Hannifin said.

    “We can’t afford to do research ourselves, we run on the smell of an oily rag so, when another agency does research, we rely on them sharing it with us.

    It all comes down to rubbish in => rubbish out.
    When police take answers just from the woman, they leave themselves easily manipulated.

    Are our police really that stupid?
    Are Women’s Refuge really that poor?
    Justice seems to be unimportant?

    Comment by MurrayBacon — Mon 19th May 2014 @ 6:08 pm

  26. The republican website ( published a critique of the ODARA system a couple of months back. To read it visit the republican homepage and search for “ODARA”.

    Comment by Geoff Fischer — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 3:49 pm

  27. The assessment does not include

    Has she ever lied about being on the pill
    Has she ever made false complaints before
    Has she committed any psychological acts of domestic violence
    Is she an Oxytocin abuser
    Is she having an affair
    Is she on chat roulette while your slaving at work
    Is the child actually yours
    Has she shown irrational behaviour before
    Does she have sexually bigoted belief systems
    Do you suspect her actions are taking place to ban you from seeing your children
    Do you think her actions are taking place to increase child support payments
    Has she had sex with you when you were drunk
    What caused your actions
    Do you want her held to account for her actions
    That caused your actions

    Do you think she is relying on the police officer being a trained man hating bigot
    Or is it that they are told to be man hating bigots

    The proof is in the resultants

    Cant or wont publish those?
    Because they are evidence of police committed crimes

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 5:03 pm

  28. ODARA
    1 Recent change in relationship status
    This applies to both parties. Hint police not hired for intelligence
    2 Offender wanting to renew the relationship
    What if victim wanting this but offender not
    3 Officer identifies / partner discloses psychological violence
    Female commit psychological violence at twice the rate of males
    4 Chronic violence in the relationship
    Requires two to tango
    5 Violence – increasing severity/frequency
    This happens at the end of relationships stupid
    6 Victim believes offender could kill or injure her
    Men die as well, stabed while they sleep, or piosened
    7 Offender has strangled the victim
    With all the help of the state, like financialy with child support, opps sorry mothers support
    8 Offender has threatened/attempted suicide
    You mean its that bad that they want to die
    9 Offender has threatened to kill the victim or others
    10 Offender has a history of violence against others
    Females are just as violent as men, seen cheaters lately
    11 Offender has stalked the victim
    how else do men fall prey to women when they want the DPB
    12 Offender has exhibited sexual jealousy
    Females do this at twice the rate that men do, and its very violent
    13 Offender is recently unemployed / under financial pressure
    Stay at home mum?
    14 Offender has history of drug / alcohol use
    Females use cannabis at the same rate as men, except victims of the female version of rape
    15 Offender has diagnosed mental illness
    Self explanatory
    16 Offender has diagnosed personality disorder
    Look at the women and make your own diagnosis

    This of course leads to 100% decisions made against men

    Bigotry is institutionalised

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 7:41 pm

  29. #26
    ‘We can’t afford to do research ourselves, we run on the smell of an oily rag so, when another agency does research, we rely on them sharing it with us.

    They get a budget, even if those millions is an oily rag
    Us human rights violation victims get nothing

    Our budget must be a blood stained rag

    Comment by The man in Absentia — Fri 5th September 2014 @ 7:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Skip to toolbar