Awful victim blaming article - Emma Pattison 😢

[Babyboomtastic]

I was shocked to see this on the metro website:

metro.co.uk/2023/02/08/emma-pattison-was-arrested-after-row-with-husband-years-before-death-18249909/

Headline: Epsom College head ‘was arrested after row with husband years before death’

Back in 2016 it seems that the husband phoned the police to say that she'll slapped him around the face, and then phoned back a few minutes later saying not to come as it was trivial. They came anyway, she was arrested, spoken to and then released without charge.

It goes on day sat that they were having counselling for marital problems and her job was one of the issues.

It comes across as 'poor man with violent workaholic wife snaps' 😡😡😡

IF she did slap him 6-7 years ago, that doesn't excuse murdering her or their child, and saying 'she was violent too, I was only defending myself, shes crazy etc' is textbook behaviour from many abusive men...

Urgh

She may have slapped him, but it seems doubtful that came out of nowhere and his response was obviously calculated to send a clear message to her…

Same here. This poor woman and child endured an unsafe homelife. These things do not happen in isolation. Being in a high profile, successful job is no protection from dangerous, unhinged men. What does it take for women and children to be protected?

Julie talks sense as ever

www.spectator.co.uk/article/emma-pattison-and-the-painful-truth-about-femicide/

You need to take a step back and read. You are having a disagreement with yourself because none of what you’ve said is inconsistent with what I’ve said.

Some of you seem incapable of a calm, logical and sensible discussion.

What a strange thing to say! Why should anyone’s job or profession matter in terms of whether they are protected from domestic violence. Some of these assertions are so illogical that they are close to incomprehensible and reprehensible.

Domestic violence is not conditional on size, height, weight, job, whether or not you are or exhibit fear, your gender, your race, age or what you ate for breakfast.

Think you’re projecting there massively. For example, you wrote:

In this case, a fact reported was she hit him, he reported it, she was cautioned, police could not go further even though they wanted to because he would no cooperate.

Except that wasn’t the fact. He reported her, she was arrested and interviewed, but she wasn’t cautioned (doesn’t sound like you know what a police caution is, by the way); and the bit about they wanted to go further is pure conjecture made up on your part. So no, not “logical”, or a “Fact” either.

and it is not victim blaming to ask what happened before.

///

But if you give this theory value and follow it to its natural conclusion then his abhorrent actions can then be justified

So I disagree it's absolutely victim blaming. It's basically she asked for it. Their child didn't but hey, mum should have thought of that

I’m simply saying what I read.

I have zero interest in your theorising.

Domestic violence is not conditional on size, height, weight, job, whether or not you are or exhibit fear, your gender, your race, age or what you ate for breakfast.

If it’s not conditional on any of those things, why is it a majority of men that commit it, by a very long way? And the victims are women and children, by a very long way…?

You seem to think you are being very noble by suggesting that DV is some abstract thing that floats above context and people. Whereas it is always embedded in a social context and within the norms of an overwhelming orientation towards male violence. The odd departure from this does not affect the direction of the general trend; and it’s frankly illogical and damaging to suggest that DV isn’t something that is deeply and overwhelmingly rooted in men’s attitudes and behaviour towards women and children.

You didn’t read properly then, because the article does not say she was cautioned at all.

(And the link is up thread if you want to check.)

Mother** that's nice

Read where?

There are many articles on this. I was not referring to the one the OP linked to:

The Dailymail article I read said (it said she was interviewed under caution, so not cautioned as I said):

“He phoned the police complaining she had slapped him during a domestic row. It is understood he regretted making the call and downplayed it as a trivial matter when officers arrived, claiming he didn’t realise what would happen.

Surrey Police did take the matter seriously and the Mail understands Mrs Pattison was interviewed under caution with a solicitor present. The case was dropped as her husband wouldn’t co-operate”

Read here:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11726095/amp/Epsom-College-news-Emma-Pattisons-husband-living-apart-family.html

That’s not being cautioned, as you admit.

You need to go and read some of the extensive literature about domestic violence and what perpetrators do. It is common for abusive men to claim that they are the ones being abused, and to try to frighten women by reporting them for domestic violence. It’s a well known tactic of abusers in child custody disputes as well. You sound very naive about how domestic violence works if you don’t know this; and if you think DV is somehow independent of context and male violence against women and children.

Well, I don’t think this needs any further comment.

So not cautioned then.

Horrible that this is taking up the conversation about a family annihilator.

You are doing a really good impression of someone who thinks that. Maybe read back your posts.

It really doesn't.

Quote something I have said that makes it sound like I need a "perfect victim" in order to support abused women?

The fact that I don't believe Emma was abusive does not prove that.

Oh the size of her against him really makes it impossible for him to be a victim of abuse does it?!? My DP suffered horrendous abuse at the hands of his ex - a woman half his size. But of course it must've really been his fault... no wonder he thought no one would believe him, he's built like a brick shithouse and looks like a Viking which obviously means he was a fault.
Nothing can ever explain or justify him killing them (obviously) but by blindly refusing to consider the fact it may not have been like expect is just daft.