Posts by B Jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The facts of the matter are that none of us were there...
You're very confident of that - what evidence do you have to support that assertion?
Not that I'm saying one of the commenters here is either of the principals in disguise, it's just that you obviously feel confident enough to make that assumption in the absence of evidence either way.
We take short cuts in thinking like that all the time, otherwise we could barely venture an opinion on the weather unless we're outside. Unless we're a Crown prosecutor or juror or other maker of important decisions, it's ok to do that.
-
Quel surprise. Anyone care for a wager on when the magazine cover comes out?
-
But as I see you point out up thread, Matthew, this clearly isn't the case in the Veitch situation. I'm not sure why, then, a divergence into women's domestic violence is warranted. It has the effect of minimising the seriousness of this case, whether or not that is the intention of those wanting to go there.
-
Men are constrained in how they can respond to being attacked by their partner, because of their greater physical strength.
Rubbish. When you're stronger and taller and have better reach, you've got more options for dealing with the situation without contributing to the violence - ie restraint.
I've read that since the advent of women's refuges, husband kills wife homicides have fallen a bit, but wife kills husband homicides have plummetted. Many of those, the theory goes, resulted from women in abusive relationships having more options to get away from it. There are more than a few cases of women in violent relationships who have killed their partners and not been able to rely on self-defence, because their methods were out of proportion to the violence currently underway (ie sneaking up on sleeping violent husband and cracking him on the head with something). If you're stronger, you've got more options.
-
That is, any violence that's not in defence of self or another, etc.
-
Shep:
Littlest actions can have very bad results. TRhat's why no violence is good & we no-longer use the 'rule of thumb'.
Ah, what? I thought it was because there's no justification, despite what certain texts say about a stick the width of one's thumb, for using any violence against another person. Not because a little light bashing can get out of hand.
-
Tui's branding is such that I don't expect anything more from them on that front. They're selling to the same crowd as Veitch appealed to, they're not going to do anything unexpected like "She Fell Down the Stairs/Yeah Right", or "I'm not making any excuses for what I've done/Yeah Right".
-
I like it too. I think it's to do with the emotion that the gorilla conveys, which is humanlike in its breathing and blinking and stretching, but also gorilla-like in that little snarl it does at the camera in its face. It owes something to King Kong.
And the unexpectedness of the drums in what you think might be a save the animals charity kind of ad is brilliant.
-
You'll have to pardon me for cynicism, but isn't the really really contrite apology and promise never to do it again combined with a dash of diminished responsibility part of the classic domestic violence routine?
And the stage managed press conference, with the man's poor wife up there beside him, is straight out of the I Did Bad But I'd Like My Rep Back public relations manual, as performed elsewhere by Eliot Spitzer and Ted Haggard. I'm looking forward to the tearful long-run TV interview (with pre-vetted questions) and the magazine cover - How I Turned My Life Around for the Love of a Good Woman.
The media machine's going to get its pound of flesh one way or the other - I'd prefer to see it used in the defence of victims of domestic violence than used to minimise the consequences of serious criminal offending.
-
Slate has a nifty little video on the Art of Fessing Up. It looks like someone's been taking notes.