'Tragic Family Situation' - murder of children, apparently by their father.

plumpdog, Nimpy is right. She's not actually commenting on whether women are responsible or not. Just commenting on the irony of this phrase when this sort of hellish violence is actually almost always male.

MrsJohnMurphy, I don't know if it's possible to prevent it, since there is obviously a difference between an abuser and a murderer, but I think there are predictable factors.

In nearly every case of male perpetrator family annihilation save those where there has been some sort of complete psychotic break, there is a history of domestic violence. It's a huge marker for this sort of event, usually following an attempt by the abused to break free of control in some way. A classic case of "If I can't have them/her, no one can".

OP, my thoughts exactly. It is a tragedy for the family left behind, but the police's description is a crass summary of a case of murder, pure and simple. Just because the killer is no longer around doesn't mean it's anything else.

How about this case daily mail, I really don't agree with the Man=evil, Woman=troubled division in analysis of family annihilations.

Who the hell knows what happens in peoples heads, or in private. Obviously it happens more often with males, but I can't see any ways to predict or prevent it.

Ive only just skimmed through this thread quickly but i did see on the Mails site yesterday that they (the Mail) were picking through the mothers Facebook posts. That didnt sit too well with me ......it was like they were looking for a reason to make it her fault and blame her.

I agree with you solidgoldbrass - there's no excuse for violence

Um, I doubt that many people think that murder of own children is 'acceptable' under any circumstances.
Latest I've seen on this story is that Ruth Fuller has described Ceri as "gentle" and asked that her privacy is respected.
thunks I agree.

Is it common?

I don't buy the idea that anyone really believes it is a man's right to kill his children or feels he is not culpable. I think a lot of people want to put as much distance between themselves and this sort of event as possible so will search for a reason this was predictable/preventable. And trashy tabloids want to sell papers so will report on anything they can remotely tie to the incident.

On the Daily Mail site, the policeman talking about the murder doesn't sound for one second as though he is not taking it seriously as a murder. While there is something to be said for critiquing the treatment of this in the media, I really think that the turn of phrase given by the policeman has been blown out of all proportion.

WHat is also needed is a lot more people to speak out against this bullshit that violence is acceptable when a partner has had sex with other people. IT'S NOT. Decent people do not commit murder, or assault, or criminal damage if a partner has sex with someone else. You might be hurt and angry, drink too much, cry a lot etc etc, but you don't kill your children. People who react with violence to the end of a relationship are scum and being cheated on is no more than they deserved; they would have been horrible partners anyway.

I do think it's acceptable to discuss this because it is a common social problem which could be prevented at least some of the time. By speaking out against domestic violence, by doing more to protect women and children against it, by making, for instance any report or incidence of abuse in a relationship justification for preventing unsupervised access to children by the abuser when the relationship has ended.

Erm, I understood drjohnsonscat's post to mean that her sister was reading into these cases that there was a woman somehow indirectly responsible for someone else's violent acts.
I think that would have been apparent from my posts.
drjohnsonscat has since sort of implied that that wasn't what was meant in the posts.

drjohnsonscat - I understood your post about your sister to mean that she was pointing out the irony / inherent bias in the phrase "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". Not sure why absurd or fucking stupid .

I know that the practice that I've desrcibed above WRT to journalists manufacturing quotes happens fairly often, MamaMary. If in your working life you haven't notice this happening then perhaps that's pleasant for you.

Haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with the OP. 'Tragic family situation' does tend to minimise the horror. I totally agree.

Plump as a journalist I can assure you that a reporter would have accurately reported the exact phrase that was used. Journalists don't make up quotes.

Could be Kritiq, what do you think ? - anyway absolutely no mention of the mother of the children - hopefully giving her the little peace they can offer.

What, you mean they've been reading us? :)

The way this was reported on News at One was good I thought - obviously they've been taking notes ...

So if the press are referring to the "mother's affair" (and I haven't seen that they have, but perhaps I haven't searched deeply enough) then that's not acceptable.
WRT to police referring to a "tragic family situation", the fact that someone is quoted by a journalist as having said this doesn't necassarily mean that (s)he actually used those words. A "quote" could be drawn from an affirmative or non-commital response to a question using those words - and it's not unheard of for this to happen where interviewees are reticent and don't provide the "quotes" that journalists want for a story.
I think it's fairly well established that ethics and social responsibility are not the foremost concerns of much of the mainstream UK printed press.
drjohnsonscat - I agree that DV and its causes should be discussed. I think that WRT to the phrase "family situation", the issue of the ways in which law enforcers and the system have historically treated DV and current press reporting standards and limitations (both in terms of accuracy and nuance and legally) are two very different issues.
I also think that press responsiblity should be discussed. But I don't think it's helpful to draw inferences about the facts of a real and current case to try and do this. Obviously it's distasteful, etc., but also, if the aim is to discuss DV or press reporting seriously, then perhaps a discussion that leads to unsupported speculation about the facts of a single case that hasn't yet been investigated isn't of much benefit to anyone.

I do understand where you are coming from. However, I think the family are likely to feel distress because of what happened, whether papers report what happened, or how they report it.

And, I guess the point that concerns me is that from what folks are saying here about the current case, the press are already suggesting that the "mother's affair" was in part responsible for the deaths. That is exactly what happened with the friend of a friend mentioned above. I can't tell you how distressing this "spin" by the papers was for her parents and family.

I agree it's right to have a discussion about the sort of terminology used the press as well, but not by using a case where the facts are not yet established.

But I will agree to disagree, as despite arguing against most of you on this because I feel it will be inordinately distressing to the family, I'm actually in complete agreement with everything you're saying.

Puff It does doesn't it? It is a horrible way of phrasing what has happened.

I also thought the terminology was bizarre. It seems to imply they were all responsible in some way.

Yes absolutely sympathy to any family or friends involved or in a similar situation. But I think it is right to have a discussion about the sort of terminology used by the police and the press. It has far reaching consequences.

I don't really agree Dahlen about us not really knowing anything yet.

I think it's reasonable for us to draw the most obvious conclusions from the evidence presented. And I think it's reasonable to discuss issues surrounding what has happened, and especially the way it has been reported in the media, and what the police statements have said.

If we waited until after the investigation then the discussion would probably never happen. When the newspapers wait till after the investigation before commenting then maybe we will too.

However, yes, every sympathy to any family or friends who might be reading