for instance you may have a situation where everyone knows the real facts and implications of something but they find it conveneint to ignore them. In that case "civilly" pleading with someone to engage with the facts and logic of a situation when they know perfectly well what they are doing and why (...) is simply providing them with gratifying evidence of their own power to ignore facts and logic in pursuit of their agendas. In that case what is left but to try and illustrate the reality via sarcasm, mockery or whatever for whatever effect it may, or more likely may not, have. In that case what is left but to try and illustrate the reality via sarcasm, mockery or whatever for whatever effect it may, or more likely may not, have.

Well, you certainly have developed a quite lively epigrammatic style -- cutting to the very core of the argument you want to make with one or two sentences. I wished I could do that.

You're making quite an accusation here, sort of comparable to the UFO complots the American government is always supposed to be shushing. I think there are several commenters (myself included) who would indeed engage with the facts and logics of a situation, perhaps because (speaking for myself) at least I don't think I always know all the facts and their implications, and I certainly don't want to ignore anything. Also, I am not -- at least not consciously -- trying to pursue any hidden agendas; I am just sincerely interested in expressing my viewpoint and listening to the viewpoint of others. And I think I'm not the only one doing this here. At least for our sake, you might wish to go into more detail.

But perhaps you mean the Broadsheet editors, not the commenters. Well, though I do also detect a certain amount of bias, and the vague outlines of an agenda, I don't think this prevents dialogue. Many people criticize the posts when they see biases -- I have done that myself on occasion, and so have other serious commenters here. Are you concerned with the editor's power to bestow red stars and thus doom some comments to 'oblivion'? Well, I don't think it's so important; I, for one, read all the comments, and evaluate them on their own merits. And again I think there are others here doing that.

I like your epigrams, even when I don't agree with them. It would be nice to see you arguing logically too. Logics, facts, interpretations... leaving anger and emotions aside. Call me naive if you will, but I still believe in all of that.

@ darla_meeks: I quite agree that any spouse who can "DOCUMENT past abuses...photographs of bruises and lacerations, police reports, stacks of ineffectual restraining orders..." should be entitled to use these facts in her defense. But I disagree that she would be "quite justified in killing the bastard", simply because I am squarely against murder. Only in immediate self-defense should it be OK to kill someone and be acquitted; the reaction to abuse should not be murder. Of course, if murder was committed, I think abuse should be accepted as a defense, in order to mitigate the punishment; but not to acquit. If you believe in the rule of law, then you also believe in abstaining from the right to murder anyone, even if you can build a convincing case that the person deserves to be killed. The bastard's punishment should be up to the courts, or else, why have them? Saying that the courts might acquit an abuser and that s/he might stalk his/her spouse is again like saying the system doesn't work; in this case, the problem is not this UK law, but why we should bother to have a law system at all.

I agree men should be able to mount the same defense, but I note that it is more frequent for abusive wives to be non-physical (though physically abusive wives do also occur). And there are many abusive husbands who are non-physical too. Non-physical abusers do other kinds of abuse -- verbal, financial; things like turning the kids against their spouse; etc. Would it be OK if this defense were available also in these cases, not only in the ones in which physical violence was present? As worded, the description of the defense doesn't make it clear; and it is not obvious to me that such cases, however bad, should also be covered by this defense.