Misleading campaign trying to con the UK about the horrific level of domestic violence committed by men against women

Not an attempt at derailing, Saskia but in direct response to this comment:

Add message | Report | Message poster BigChocFrenzy Wed 02-Sep-15 20:38:17
I'd expect that campaigns to reduce rape and violence, together with the overall strategy, would be discussed at a high level, with specialists in managing behaviour and in dealing with crime.

The suggestion being either a discussion with 'specialists' at a 'high level' does not necessarily denote quality of campaign or perhaps that every campaign does not involve such educated experienced people - whichever applies.

Yeah, Saskia. I'm going to stick to the disengaging plan!

From DV to artificial sweeteners - that has got to be the lamest attempt at derailing I have ever seen.

And advised switching sugary soft drinks for 'diet' i.e.artificially sweetened, soft drinks....

Change 4 life was targeted. It was colourful cartoon people so that it appealed to families and schools.

'Change 4 life' if I remember correctly...

Like the healthy eating campaigns we have had advertised and in schools?

Do you object to the campaign showing a drunk 20 something climbing scaffolding and falling, because sometimes 60-somethings also get drunk and hurt themselves?

There is limited budget for public awareness campaigns and it needs to be targeted. The end. I see no point discussing this further with you, TBH.

People need to be aware of the law, certainly.

Those are questions I don't have an answer to BigChoc.

The basis for this thread in the OP was statistical raw data. As I said earlier I do not like generalisations too much. If you apply statistical data to individual case studies it can often show the statistics become meaningless in the care of individuals - being an exception does not reduce the seriousness or severity of an individual's difficulties. It is Sod's law that almost every case will involve some exceptional circumstances. Prejudice based on people's knowledge of statistics can only make the plight of people who don't fit exactly worse. This is why I would like more funds put into improving actual services. We have expensive campaign after expensive campaign whilst services are being cut.

If anyone can only speak from experience, that's government (as an entity) fucked then.

You are objecting to this campaign. This campaign is based on statistics, on the accumulation of many people's experience. Any one of us saying "here's my experience" is not relevant to the validity of the campaign, though it may be interesting in other ways.

Accepted, Yonic but I can only speak from experience, the same as anyone on this thread. Why? Are my experiences less valid than other people's?

But you understand that these campaigns are not based on your experience, where all the people you know committed DV had other problems?

Come to that, you may know other people who committed DV without your awareness.

^ those would be people who knew they were wrong but not what to do.

In the case of people with more serious delusions, these may be picked up more at home, either because they do not like going out or people ignore / dismiss what is going on in public places.

I don't know about the majority Yonic, only those I have had experience of. However I think the home can be a place where mentally vulnerable people might eventually crack because there is less social pressure to hold it together.

Possibly, Lightening but tbh I suspect there would be as many similarities and differences between one violent man compared to one violent woman, as one violent man to one violent man.

If it were simple it might well have been solved by now.

Do you think the majority of DV perpetrators are mentally disordered to the extent they don't know that violence is wrong and inflict it on anyone they are in contact with at the wrong moment?

Some were, some weren't, Yonic.