What is the matter with these men? (Not funny)

[Janh]

Another one who killed most of the family and then jumped off a bridge - left the baby in the car this time

BBC

This is not the model that would be used by the courts in the pilots. First, bear in mind that this process is for the cases not involving accusations of violence/abuse - the vast majority. Second, the mediation in the model under consideration is under the court's jurisdiction and is enforced by the judge warning that failure to co-operate with the process (and that includes bullying/intimidation) would be penalised by the court in the final settlement. It's currently being developed by the London court, but already in existence in parts of the world like Florida, where any cases including violence/abuse are fast tracked into investigation and more 'bog standard' divorces are handled by mediators who help develp post-separation proposals and report to the judge on the behaviour of participants in the case. So slightly different. Tends to work better than our system.

Just wanted to say, Tom, that I looked at the conference brochure and it sounds absolutely fascinating. If I were closer to London I'd be tempted to come myself. I hope it all goes well on the day.

There are a few places going to be available for people working in small voluntary organisations who otherwise wouldn't be able to come - funded by the DFES. They'll be attached to particular forums - depending on the level of bookings in each (we've filled about 600 of the 900 places so far, and some of the forums need more delegates). If anyone is really interested though, and can come as part of a small vol.sector org, feel free to contact me via our site .

We can't fund places at the children's creche or drama day, but at £15 for the day, it's cheaper than nursery! Bob the Builder's coming too, and there'll be party bags

Tom, I've rarely seen such a patronising and aggressive post as yours of 9.58 on Friday. I'm surprised someone who works with 'domestic violence issues' thinks it's OK to lash out at a group of women for daring to disagree with you. Or to claim that women aren't driven mad by lack of contact with their children ? don't you read the papers? So you felt people misunderstood you ? you could have explained yourself without resorting to block caps and insults. And I'm sorry but this lame attempt to stop anyone picking you up on this by saying 'I don't mean to cause offence' doesn't wash with me. You just wanted to stop anyone responding with the same vigour you displayed. Shame on you.

eddm
I "lash out at a group of women"? - what exactly are you accusing me of here now????
I was not because peope were "daring to disagree with me", but rather for misrepresenting what I said, just as you have done again, with your use of metaphors of gender violence.
I have never anywhere said women are not driven mad by lack of contact.

message withdrawn

Tom, I was objecting to your comments: 'there simply aren't many women driven insane by lack of contact with their children - maybe?'
And in your 6th Feb post your repeated use of block caps ie shouting at us which is aggressive, your swearing at us, your patronising comment: 'Let's all read together..." and 'Why can't some people distinguish between "reasons" and "excuses". You could have explained yourself in a non-agressive manner but chose not to. I think that demonstrates a worrying degree of hostility. OK, you admitted you were angry, but I don't think a thread about violent men killing their wives and children is an appropiate place for this kind of attitude towards posters who you know are almost all women.

I've kept off this thread as I had nothing to contribute and it had all the indications that it would turn into another All Men Are Bad - "oh no they're not" - "oh yes they are". Been there before, several times.

Statistically, men commit far more crimes than women; domestic violence and murder being no exceptions to that rule. It's not good, it's not defensible, but that's the way it is. If I knew a way of reducing crime (male and/or female) I'd share it with you all.

It's a disappointment that the compassion shown to Bunglie and Cheeseball after reading their heartbreaking stories on the Roy Meadows thread does not cross over to compassion towards fathers who are denied access to their children by the courts.

Just to add another angle to this discussion - I Want to pick up what Staurt mentioned about crime and men.

There is a really good book that I read over 10 years ago when it was all new fangled stuff about evolutionary psychology.....the red queen by matt ridley

very interesting for those who would like to look further. A bit sciencey but reasonably easy reading

Tom,

You posted: "A possible reason (please note: not excuse - reason) is that because 96% of post separation residence orders are granted to women, there simply aren't many women driven insane by lack of contact with their children - maybe?"
What do you mean by this in the context of this threat - whole families slaughtered by violent men? Do you mean that it was wrong to give residence orders to the mothers of these murdered children? If not, why even mention it? This post very strongly implies that the motive for these men is that they 'are driven insane by lack of contact with their children'. But as I have already pointed out, these men were extremely violent while they LIVED with their children. They simply were not 'driven' to it by lack of contact. It is usual in these cases for men to tell their partners that they will kill them if they leave. And they do. They pre-plan it, there are not 'driven to it".
Your other post:

"I think that men who are seriously unhinged, violent, abusive etc etc, and perhaps have ideas about men controlling women, can be tipped into this kind of behaviour by feelings of loss of control - the only control left them is over life/death.
Clearly it's the result of some kind of serious psychiatric disorder - hardly the actions of reasonable men. But there is a correlation between these kinds of events and breakdown of the relationship/loss of family that needs to be picked up on - it is a contributing factor, no?

So what exactly do you think SHOULD have happened in the cases we are discussing on this thread? That these women should live in refuges for the rest of their lives? Women get tracked down and killed in refuges too, you know. I just don't understand what you mean by 'it is a contributing factor" - do you mean that it was wrong for the women to escape their violent partners and remove the children from danger? What precisely to you suggest has gone wrong here - aside of course from a violent man committing murder. Also, these men do not suffer from mental illness as it is normally defined. They are murderers and very violent, but not all murderers and violent people are mad - most of them are very sane, just violent.

StuartC this thread is NOT about nice men being kept away from their families. It is about abusive men who go back to slaughter their former partners and their tiny defenceless children - which is why there is no compassion shown. If Bunglie and Cheeseball had murdered their children, I doubt very much if there would be much compassion shown. How CAN you confuse these two issues? It is beyond me.

I agree though that this is a most upsetting, tragic stroy which should never have happened

message withdrawn

Tom, one more thing, you seem incensed when I say that lack of contact with the children is NOT a contributing factor in these cases of whole family killing. You said, "WHY is it that it happens SO often at the point when an abused woman leaves home/breaks up the relationship?????" I'll tell you why. It's because the act of killing the children is not an act of grief or love (ie because they miss their kids). It is an act of violence against the mother. The same violence as was part of the relationship. An extension and escalation of it. It is nothing to do with the children and all to do with a revenge upon the woman for daring to leave his control.
If a man was 'driven insane by lack of contact with his children' (with the implication that he loves the children and misses them) how can that be linked to killing them? Killing himself, yes. But killing the children? No.

One last thing. You say we need to understand why this happens. We know why it happens. It has been studied. Men who are violent to their partners are dangerous. If they threaten to kill their partners if they leave they should be taken seriously.
And do you know what really stuns me. How incredibly generous abused women are in the way their treat their former parters. There are so many women on mumsnet who have been victims of repeated domestic violence. And again and again they post that they long to escape their ex-partners' continuing harrassment, abuse, mental cruelty but they don't. Why? Because they want to facilitate contact between the children and their horrible father. Bloody saints the lot of them. Do you see Twinkie or Sb34 saying how they plan to stop their ex seeing the kids? No you do not.

I have a cousin who is just as you describe aloha. Her husband was violent to her for many years. She eventually left him after an episode where he was beating her, held her by the throat, partly choking her, while he slammed her head against the wall. Her daughter came into the room and he dropped my cousin who fell to the floor. He then went to comfort the child, who was crying. At that point she realised that he was not normal and would never change. She divorced him and he continued to beat her, blacking her eye the day before they went to court. She still granted him visitation rights and never took a penny from him in child support. The children, now adults , still see their father. They know him for what he is, and they love their mother beyond words. She realy is a saint.

Clap clap clap aloha - very well said! There should be a symbol for a round of applause!

StuartC - people on here would have huge sympathy with a man who was unreasonably kept from seeing his kids. But that really isn't the issue here.

Tom - as aloha said, surely the reason it happens at the point that the woman leaves is because at this point they lose control of the situation, and it is their only means of gaining control.

(Btw, didn't think you were having a go earlier at all aloha!)

It may interest all the male posters who are so drawn to this thread that my husband has had to fight to see his lovely daughter. His partner left him for another man ten years ago leaving my husband as her main carer from the ages of two until five when he reluctantly gave her up to live with her mother. My husband (unlike at least one of the male posters on this thread) has never hit anyone in his life - male, female, adult or child. He was utterly distraught when his ex tried very hard to reduce his contact to next to nothing. I saw what he went through. I haven't posted about this on this thread before because it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT. We are talking about murder here, not men separated from their kids. And I'll tell you something else. My husband had the odd fantasy about his ex being run over by a bus, but he never felt anything but love and unending tenderness for his daughter. He would die for her in a heartbeat. Let's not mix killing up with love.

Were my comments on fathers' access so far off-thread? - perhaps.
I'm not sure, but I'll be guided by the opinions of others.
I certainly didn't ascribe those comments to the murders which initiated this thread.
I did think the thread had widened.

StuartC - my comments to you were in regard to the following statement.

"It's a disappointment that the compassion shown to Bunglie and Cheeseball after reading their heartbreaking stories on the Roy Meadows thread does not cross over to compassion towards fathers who are denied access to their children by the courts. "

I don't think anyone has once been uncompassionate to fathers in this situation, and this sort of father is very different to the sort being discussed here. Of course we can discuss this as well, but I don't think the discussion had encompassed this as well.

But, just to add Stuart, if a man is a danger to his wife and their children, has been violent towards them in the past and the wife fears for their safety, surely it is only in the family's interest for access to be denied, or supervised. You cite the Roy Meadows cases - it is interesting that a proven violent father is allowed to retain access to his children, to the point where he can murder them, but a mother who is deemed by 1 expert (or in one case, 2 our of 7 experts, the other 5 saying no danger) to be a possible risk to her children, has her children adopted, sometimes without trace, with little or no evidence to support this.

Tom - when you said: 'A possible reason (please note: not excuse - reason) is that because 96% of post separation residence orders are granted to women, there simply aren't many women driven insane by lack of contact with their children - maybe?'

Do you not see that the inference that is drawn from this is that you are using the case of a man who murdered his wife and children to argue for MORE residence orders for men, and that might be just a tad inappropriate? I fail to see how increasing residence orders for men could possibly go to preventing violent partners murdering their partners and children. Do please enlighten me.

Musica, I'm very glad we agree and that I didn't offend you.

I'm off to paint the garden shed and make 20 fairy cakes now.

I think your posts are spot on, aloha. Some of the illogicality on this thread is truly astounding.