Still on the subject of domestic violence, Bystander at The Magistrate's Blog has posted a follow up to the post I mentioned a couple of days ago. It seems he came in for some criticism for implying that the offence had been committed (husband assaulting the wife), without the matter being tried, and therefore for gender bias. Unfortunately, I doubt that his new post will satisfy the critics. He says:

If police are called, either by one of the parties or as often happens by neighbours or even children, and they arrive to find a bruised and sobbing victim, a bit of broken furniture, and a couple of distraught kids, then an offence has almost certainly been committed.

He does, however, go on to make clear that "only evidence will do", but then continues: "Nevertheless it is right to recognise that in a typical abusive relationship the abuser will be a man". I fear he may be in for more criticism.

I'll keep out of that debate, but I would take issue with his description of a battered women's refuge as a "rat-hole", as, I'm sure, will those who provide refuges. For anyone in doubt, I refer to the post I wrote last month, which links to a 'virtual refuge', where you can see just what a refuge is like.