Mother of murdered Royal Wootton Bassett student joins domestic abuse walk
8:30pm Tuesday 5th March 2013 in Latest News By Katie Bond
Debbie Buttars was among a group of people who are survivors of domestic violence who took part in a demonstration in Parliament Square, London, yesterday
THE mother of murdered Royal Wootton Bassett student Hannah Fisher took part in a walk in Westminster yesterday to raise awareness of domestic violence.
Debbie, of Marlowe Way, was devastated when Hannah was murdered at the age of 21 in 2009 by her ex-partner Simon Marsh.
She had endured months of domestic abuse before she died, and since her death, her mum and the rest of the family, including Debbie’s husband Clive, have been raising funds for the domestic violence charity Refuge, to help other victims.
Yesterday, Debbie and about 30 domestic violence survivors and families of victims took part in the Walk of Hope around Westminster to launch a new campaign by Avon Women’s Aid and Refuge.
The campaign, called Speaking Out In Her Name, has involved new research being carried out which shows in the south west, over half of those questioned said they know or suspect they know someone who has experienced domestic violence, while over a third would not know where to seek advice.
Debbie said: “The walk went really well. It was to highlight the new survey which is all about trying to raise awareness again about domestic violence and get more information about it on the school curriculum and help young people with relationships.
“I think some schools teach children about it but it isn’t on the curriculum and that is what they want to achieve, so that everybody can learn about it and everybody knows there is help out there.”
Debbie and her family have so far raised £7,500 for Refuge through fundraising events including a gruelling trek into the Havasu Canyon.
“I took a year off from fundraising but I hope to do something again this year, I just don’t know what yet,” she said.
“I am really pleased with the amount we have raised so far.”
Comments(26)
itsamess3
says...
11:41am Wed 6 Mar 13
Here you go again showing your complete lack of knowledge of the courts system.
You seem to think only men are violent to their partners-despite figures to the contrary.
Family courts are arbitary courts that deal with what is best for the children on reports from numerous agencies.
Criminal courts deal with assaults and violent offences.
If for example either party is arrested and bailed the offending party could be subject to conditions to keep away from the family home. If the injured party fears for their safety they can apply for an injunction before a High Court Judge whom if satisfied will grant it and include the power of arrest if any of the conditions are breached.
dukeofM4
says...
1:19pm Wed 6 Mar 13
Greater emphasis has to be put on prevention and involving the offending partner.
What is happening now is making the police, the legal profession, and the courts busy fools to satisfy a particular lobbying group's needs without any real result.
Would throwing every single man in jail really going to solve this problem? It hasn't work for drugs and it won't work on this issue particularly if men start to wake up and demand a realistic solution.
If you research this issue on the internet, partner murder rates have actually increased in countries that operate an arrest 'ask-no-questions' policy putting the 'victim' at greater risk.
The term domestic violence has become tainted by 40 years of blaming men. Perhaps the term 'family violence' should be used to better reflect that it's not all about the victim.
Walk around the town centre and there were posters with a remote control paraphrasing domestic violence is more than about control. What is that all about? You tell your partner something unpopular you're now guilty of domestic violence?
itsamess3
says...
7:40pm Wed 6 Mar 13
1:19pm Wed 6 Mar 13
A good post indeed. One of the factors is that the emphasis is on the women and few believe women can be violent and manipulate the courts--and indeed have many avenues of support not open to men.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:27am Thu 7 Mar 13
However, the most serious violence does usually relate to male on female abuse - the documented statistics prove that conclusively and without any question.
Family courts are arbitary courts that deal with what is best for the children on reports from numerous agencies.
Oh dear, how very naive you really are.
Although, as usual, your statement is just the standard offical mantra.
Do understand that 'what's best for the children' often entails a judge, who all have their own prejudices and preferences, making decisions that are sometimes very much NOT in the best interests of the children, at all.
There is a particular Swindon-based judge, female, surprisingly, who is hugely pro-contact. So much so that I personal know of families who have been put in danger, and suffered avoidable abuse, due to that insistence on contact with fathers who - when all is said and done - are violent criminals.
dukeofM4
says...
2:26pm Thu 7 Mar 13
The police really don't have the resources to guarantee anyone's safety unless they happen to be just down the road. That's the reality.
Whenever you force one party's hand over another using the police or the courts it shouldn't surprise anyone trouble happens.
itsamess3
says...
3:21pm Thu 7 Mar 13
Tim Newroman wrote:Oh Dear--you really are so obsessed with judges--you used to attack a particular judge on a daily basis claiming he was so terribly lenient--despite never having an appeal overturned at that time.
Utter nonsense from itsamess3, again. I am well aware that female on male domestic violence is a widespread reality.
However, the most serious violence does usually relate to male on female abuse - the documented statistics prove that conclusively and without any question.
Family courts are arbitary courts that deal with what is best for the children on reports from numerous agencies.
Oh dear, how very naive you really are.
Although, as usual, your statement is just the standard offical mantra.
Do understand that 'what's best for the children' often entails a judge, who all have their own prejudices and preferences, making decisions that are sometimes very much NOT in the best interests of the children, at all.
There is a particular Swindon-based judge, female, surprisingly, who is hugely pro-contact. So much so that I personal know of families who have been put in danger, and suffered avoidable abuse, due to that insistence on contact with fathers who - when all is said and done - are violent criminals.
Unfortunately for you judges will not accept claims that either party are violent criminals without substantive proof and can order any of the agencies to provide judgements or transcripts of trials as proof--if violence has occurred towards the wife/partner etc the judge will only allow supervised visits.
Applied to both male and females.
You try to paint a picture of incredibly stupid judges-unsuccessfull
y.
dukeofM4
says...
3:46pm Thu 7 Mar 13
As a society we use the police and the courts as a substitute to 'fight with words' and come out with sensible solutions between partners.
Unless something changes family courts and family violence is just a ride on the Magic Roundabout without end.
The Police and Courts offer no tangible solutions.
Tim Newroman
says...
4:43pm Thu 7 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:Untrue, it is you who is obsesed with desperately, and unsuccessfully, attempting to defend the indefensible.
Tim Newroman wrote:Oh Dear--you really are so obsessed with judges--you used to attack a particular judge on a daily basis claiming he was so terribly lenient--despite never having an appeal overturned at that time.
Utter nonsense from itsamess3, again. I am well aware that female on male domestic violence is a widespread reality.
However, the most serious violence does usually relate to male on female abuse - the documented statistics prove that conclusively and without any question.
Family courts are arbitary courts that deal with what is best for the children on reports from numerous agencies.
Oh dear, how very naive you really are.
Although, as usual, your statement is just the standard offical mantra.
Do understand that 'what's best for the children' often entails a judge, who all have their own prejudices and preferences, making decisions that are sometimes very much NOT in the best interests of the children, at all.
There is a particular Swindon-based judge, female, surprisingly, who is hugely pro-contact. So much so that I personal know of families who have been put in danger, and suffered avoidable abuse, due to that insistence on contact with fathers who - when all is said and done - are violent criminals.
Unfortunately for you judges will not accept claims that either party are violent criminals without substantive proof and can order any of the agencies to provide judgements or transcripts of trials as proof--if violence has occurred towards the wife/partner etc the judge will only allow supervised visits.
Applied to both male and females.
You try to paint a picture of incredibly stupid judges-unsuccessfull
y.
When judges themselves have sentenced convicted violent criminals, it's difficult to see how anyone might claim those people are not violent criminals.
As ever, you merely repeat the theory of procedure, you clearly know nothing - and have little experience - of what happens in reality.
Do understand that people are unlikely to take your word for anything as you've previously declared a vested interest, although you'll no doubt pretend otherwise, and you also have the rather glaring problem that most people do believe judges to be out of touch, unduly lenient and tending to fit a rather narrow demographic.
Again, your fixation and thrall with the system blinds you into making circular arguments. Just because a judge may not have their unduly lenient sentences appealled does not mean their sentences aren't unduly lenient.
That would be like claiming a prolific burglar who's never been caught isn't actually a burglar at all.
itsamess3
says...
7:37pm Thu 7 Mar 13
You really have lost your marbles with some very crazy sentences
"Do understand that people are unlikely to take your word for anything as you've previously declared a vested interest"
Would be interesting to hear what that is.
"Again, your fixation and thrall with the system blinds you into making circular arguments. Just because a judge may not have their unduly lenient sentences appealled does not mean their sentences aren't unduly lenient.
That would be like claiming a prolific burglar who's never been caught isn't actually a burglar at all.”
More a case of prosecuters knowing all the facts and details of the case and with their legal experience know an appeal would fail. Derived from years of legal training and experience.
Do tell us all about your legal training and experience-zero i guess.
How would you know a prolific burglar was in fact a burglar if they had never been caught.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the article. Although i do agree there is a need for a womens refuge there have been many cases of women making false claims and men abused by women rarely get any support.
dukeofM4
says...
8:57pm Thu 7 Mar 13
For most men the tipping point comes when the emotional abuse becomes too much and yes men can settle their differences physically at times.
The 40 year campaign of making all women defenseless creatures that can't stand up to a man without risking broken bones has worked.
Most scuffles in houses are minor, however, the public now put domestic violence into one neat box and don't seem to ask about severity of the incident.
The way this issue is being handled at present will not eradicate family violence. It may give politicians (such as an MP from Wiltshire) something to talk about, gives victims a nice warm feeling something is being done by the Gov't, but real progress being made - NO.
Tim Newroman
says...
7:37am Fri 8 Mar 13
It seems fairly obvious you've had some kind of run in with women at some point, but the rather blindingly reality is that if a woman's being 'emotionally abusive' you simply walk out the door. What's stopping you? Why would any man bother hanging around with a looney tunes woman, it's not as if there is any shortage of alternatives.
Nobody is suggesting women are all angels, or blameless, but a real man does not, ever, hit a woman, for any reason. Making up excuses and justifications for doing so is the work of weak and pathetic men. Your girlfriend/wife's being mean and teasing you? Fine, dump her an leave. It's not difficult.
Tim Newroman
says...
9:11am Fri 8 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:As you appear unable to grasp very simply concepts, there's little point continuing this with you.
Tim
You really have lost your marbles with some very crazy sentences
"Do understand that people are unlikely to take your word for anything as you've previously declared a vested interest"
Would be interesting to hear what that is.
"Again, your fixation and thrall with the system blinds you into making circular arguments. Just because a judge may not have their unduly lenient sentences appealled does not mean their sentences aren't unduly lenient.
That would be like claiming a prolific burglar who's never been caught isn't actually a burglar at all.”
More a case of prosecuters knowing all the facts and details of the case and with their legal experience know an appeal would fail. Derived from years of legal training and experience.
Do tell us all about your legal training and experience-zero i guess.
How would you know a prolific burglar was in fact a burglar if they had never been caught.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the article. Although i do agree there is a need for a womens refuge there have been many cases of women making false claims and men abused by women rarely get any support.
I have tried to make things as simple as possible, in the hope you'd be able to understand where your approach falls down but, alas, it's all gone straight over your head.
One thing you have simply managed to get entirely wrong relates to my legal training and experience. Do realise that commenting on things you know absolutely nothing about is rarely a sensible move.
itsamess3
says...
9:46am Fri 8 Mar 13
Do not fool yourself as to what i know about you-and its not guesswork.
Tim Newroman
says...
10:09am Fri 8 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:I'm bored of your ridiculous little implied threats. Your attempts at bullying are getting you nowhere.
Tim
Do not fool yourself as to what i know about you-and its not guesswork.
Do tell us all about your legal training and experience-zero i guess.
Not guesswork? Why did you write, 'i guess' then?
itsamess3
says...
10:57am Fri 8 Mar 13
"I'm bored of your ridiculous little implied threats. Your attempts at bullying are getting you nowhere".
Since when is a fact bullying or a threat?
Tim Newroman
says...
11:17am Fri 8 Mar 13
itsamess3 wrote:You constantly make little threats about passing information to lawyers and suchlike. Just like you did with RobFM.
Tim
"I'm bored of your ridiculous little implied threats. Your attempts at bullying are getting you nowhere".
Since when is a fact bullying or a threat?
Anyone who demolishes your arguments on here is usually met with some kind of comment about 'knowing who they are' or 'passing information on' or references to your 'archives'.
One really has to wonder why an eminent nuclear scientist would choose to waste their precious time in such a manner.
itsamess3
says...
12:19pm Fri 8 Mar 13
That does not work out for you at all as he was very public-everyone knew him.
You certainly have never demolished any of my claims--you are no more than a parrot--repeating the same old tosh without any proof and accusations against judges and lawyers without proof.
As a good member of society-- and nothing to do with my profession--if i get information of a miscarriage of justice i would work tirelessly to have that put right. Quite simply if someone via the net on numerous sites lies it is not difficult to spot or prove. If that person has given evidence in a court of law its a safe bet a few lies will be told.
The art is providing that information to someone with the power investigate a miscarriage of justice. An appeal has been granted.
As to this article i do admire Debbie for her fundraising efforts and as a senior nurse. However there remains an imbalance in the support for abused men.
Tim Newroman
says...
12:30pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Do understand that you cannot have it both ways.
I make no claims about judges and lawyers that aren't based on published and documented facts that are freely available to all in the public domain. Never have done, never will do.
itsamess3
says...
1:59pm Fri 8 Mar 13
12:30pm Fri 8 Mar 13
"But you routinely claim that there's no such thing as a 'miscarriage of justice', merely just cases where people don't know the full facts"
From someone claiming legal knowledge--that has to rank as one of your more ridiculous remarks.
I make no claims about judges and lawyers that aren't based on published and documented facts that are freely available to all in the public domain. Never have done, never will do.”
It would be most helpful then if you could dig out these published and documented facts as to all your claims of unduly lenient sentences by our local judges;
Even more helpful if you can also give proof of local lawyers you claim lie to the courts.
To help you out--you would need the transcript of the judgement which gives the full reasoning and evidence reloed on for the sentence.
As to lawyers lies a full transcript of the proceedings and proof of the lies.
Tim Newroman
says...
3:08pm Fri 8 Mar 13
You know full well where to look for an entire list, with names, of unduly lenient sentences by the judiciary. Sentences that are held up as unduly lenient by their superiors.
In much the same way that I've shown up your contradictory and hypocritial statements, as your superior.
itsamess3
says...
4:44pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Tim Newroman
says...
7:26pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Do note that you did not answer my very simple question to you. Quelle surprise.
You openly state that miscarriages of justice occur, yet only seem to think that works one way. Very naive and very ignorant.
itsamess3
says...
9:26am Sat 9 Mar 13
7:26pm Fri 8 Mar 13
"Every 'claim' is merely a republishing of information already in the public domain. Proof is intrinsic. Hardly my fault or problem if you can't understand that"
Sadly for you it is your fault and problem as you have repeatedly made claims that the media and court records show the woman you have repeatedly claim to have murdered twice.
As to your claims against lawyers lying (locally) you nor the media have provided any proof to that effect.
As i have spoken to one in particular who invites you to lodge a complaint to their governing body who will access the court records and compare the social reports against the mitigation claims.
Your final paragraph is entirely wrong as i have always stated both parties have the right to appeal the sentence or conviction. Prosecuters-if new evidence comes to light that suggests the conviction was unsafe simply pass ot to the defence.
Tim Newroman
says...
8:27am Sun 10 Mar 13
You are, or at least, should be, aware that I would not post 'proof' of lawyers lying in court on this website merely to show you up. You do quite a good enough job of that yourself.
Do realise that the 'one in particular ' you spoke to may well be the one who is currently in the process of having an investigation brought against them. That is, if you actually 'spoke to' anyone at all. Your meddling will likely do them no favours.
My final paragraph was entirely correct. You have clearly stated you believe that lenient sentences are not lenient sentences unless they are appealled and overturned as such. That is a very naive and childish approach to take.
itsamess3
says...
10:46pm Sun 10 Mar 13
"Because both play the silly game of pretending her first murder was manslaughter. I don't subscribe to those attempts to pull the wool over people's eyes"
You immediately contradict yourself.
"Do realise that the 'one in particular ' you spoke to may well be the one who is currently in the process of having an investigation brought against them. That is, if you actually 'spoke to' anyone at all".
I dined today with some very capable legal persons who all agree there is no such process as having an investigation brought against legal persons they are either under investigation or not--and as your claims amount to a conspiracy to pervert justice and as such would be arrested and questioned. One will be asking the local courts in the morning if any applications have been made for any full transcripts.
As i have said before i do admire the campaign to tackle domestic violence--however i feel men should have far more support when the are abused
Tim Newroman says...
7:51am Wed 6 Mar 13
Both politicians and the public need to bring far more pressure on family court judges to stop the insidious and dangerous practice of them insisting on contact with the children and mothers in domestic abuse situations by abusive fathers.
Brave women can often spend years escaping from these criminally abusive men and protecting their children through court cases that are always skewed in favour of the abuser... only to find the family court judge insists that the criminal must be legally given contact with the very people they have been assaulting, battering, attacking and raping.
In any other circumstance, they would be considered accomplices. It has to end.