bbc - bad science?

[TruthOnTrial]

Bbc are reporting on research into associations with alchohol, drugs and domestic violence.

Livid that after learning of the amount of men that blame their acts on anything other than their own actions; the hiding behind any excuse, that the bbc are stating that because the experimental cohort of alchohol and drug abusers have higher incidence of da against their female partners, that the conclusion to be drawn is causative!!!

Its just a correlation, but its being cited as the basis for throwing money at drink and drug rehab, rather than addressing the main issue

Ffs!!! There isn't enough money going aeound to help women, yet again the men are getting the help over the women they abuse based on bad science.

Alchohol and drugs are just symptoms of a greater issue, that in denying keeps women and child at risk.

Surely bbc reporters know the difference bwtween correlation and causation

Surely bbc reporters know the difference bwtween correlation and causation

No they don’t. They don’t understand science at all. They thinkmen can change sex ffs

Both substance misuse and domestic abuse are probably related to past trauma and/or emotional dysregulation in men, surely it's a good thing if they are receiving support so they are no longer abusive?

Well, no.

Research, by those who worked with perpetrators and developed the freedom programmes tell us that drinking and drugs are excuses.

That perpetrators hold a certain abusive mindset, their beliefs and attitudes are abusive, and they are rarely rehabilitated, even when abstinent (as in when incarcerated and on programmes like Respect to undo abusive mysogynistic beliefs about women).

This was the whole point of this post that the bbc is asserting a cause and effect, when its already proven unrelated.

Perpetrators hide behind anything, including alchohol etc.

I get drunk, amd maybe you do too, do you get nasty and hit people? Your partner, I never have, I get stupid, sing a lot, that sort of thing.

Its simply daft to go down this line of nonsense.

I work with offenders and a lot of women have committed violent crimes in anger, when drunk or under the influence of drugs. It's one of the most common themes I hear from women. Many, like men, have no idea how to regulate emotions because they have never learned it from someone who's good at it. Same applies to men, who may also have grown up with violence and abuse. I'm not saying it's that case for all men, nor that all men who have experienced abuse / neglect etc. will be abusive, but it's a significant factor. If we hold that women behave in certain ways because of their childhood experiences, why wouldn't it be the same for men?

I think there's a difference between someone who gets drunk and goes out looking for a fight, and someone who gets drunk, and specifically abuses their family.

One does show a lack of control, whereas the other is targeted. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that there would be different methods to deal with each type of violence, and that what works for the people who lack control, won't work for the men who specifically use their violence to control their partner and children.

OP, if you want an informed discussion about this, please can you link to the research the bbc are reporting on?

OP, if you want an informed discussion about this

Big 'if' that.

Drugs and alcohol have a strong correlation with all kinds of violent crime, and some non-violent crimes too. Both affect people's immediate ability to regulate behaviour, and can affect personality more substantially with prolonged misuse, so anyone abusing them regularly is going to be at higher risk for any number of anti-social behaviours.

I just don't see it as somehow anti-woman to recognise that.

Correlation, not causation

Yes, Pope I agree, but it was on the radio news yesterday repeatedly, however I've not managed to find it elsewhere yet, and been absent for most of this time since postinf despite it being something I feel very strongly about.

This thread is not here for the discussion of women offenders.

Its male offenders, and not about male v female, but perp mindset being the basis of dv not external chemical influences.

The pp was discussing male offenders. You can't be all, no ladybrain! on the one hand, and then claim the same psychological and addiction processes don't go on with both.

That achohol reduces people's ability to control themselves is not controversial. Everybody has anti-social urges. We don't all have the same ones, but they are there. Just because you never feel violent really is pretty meaningless. Some people do. Both men and women are more likely to be violent and offend when they've been drinking, including domestic abuse - which in women generally means against their kids.

Its really not beyond the pale to suggest that where there are people with problems with drugs and alcohol, as well DV, that addressing the former might also address the latter. In fact if you look there are plenty of anecdotal accounts where this has been effective. The big downside IMO would be that addiction is a difficult problem to overcome. The upside of this approach is there are a lot of families who will end up staying together whether or not the DV stops, even if the perpetrator is prosecuted sometimes, even if there is help offered to leave, and that is also a difficult situation to do much about. If you can improve things within those relationships its better than the alternative.

When I worked with offenders, many years ago, a psychologist who worked with us thought that what actually happened was that men getting ready to offend would start drinking more and start watching violent content or porn. It wasn't alcohol and porn that caused the offending, rather the offenders was mentally stripping themselves of their humanity and empathy in preparation.

The sober person buys the alcohol, knowing the effect on their behaviour. So it's the sober person who knowingly creates the environment for offending.

This sounds a lot like the recognised phenomenon of manufactured anger MrsTerry

It sounds like part of this process to aid achieving the state from which to offend [and then use to blame for the offence]

Some proper Bad Science on R4 this morning with climate change denier Charles Moore getting his balance in first before Greta's bit on the Today Prog on Monday.

It's just a bit of bad weather, so relax everyone.