I also happen to think domestic violence is a particular crime. Once again, not unique, but specific in nature in that it is an abuse of power in the microcosm of a household and that the victims and witnesses of domestic violence are terrorised and often left feeling entirely helpless, hopeless and traumatised for many years.

This is not to say that other crimes are not similar - yet domestic violence, like some other violations, is symbolic of an entire human history through which women have been variously subjugated, humiliated, abused and repressed.

And in the entire span of known human history, we live in a rare island of humanity - perhaps not always in our actions - but I hope in our ideals. A sliver of time in which we agree that no person can own another person. No person can terrorise another person.

And it all just seems so fragile. Crimes against women are perpetrated every day, here and abroad, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by states, often by the most evil of men or by the weakest of men. Yet never, surely, in this time can such crimes be compatible with any noble ideal.

In the past, when a celebrity woman-beater has emerged in the news, I have thought about this. Mike Tyson, Stan Collymore - I have thought about the young men and boys who looked up to them and whether they should have been hounded from their sports. I kind of thought no. I felt that if either man had chosen to do so, they could have used their position to perhaps make some amends and maybe to use their influence to try to prevent those young men and boys from following their example. I don't recall either man doing so.

But politics isn't football and it isn't boxing. Surely every politician agrees that an elected representative's obligations to the weakest outweigh their obligations to the strongest? Surely domestic violence by an elected official is a betrayal of our entire civilisation, not just of the victims of the crime?

Our treatment of women is the clearest hallmark of how far we have come as a society. And even that work isn't yet finished - and all the progress is so recent.

The truth is, I shouldn't be making an exception for domestic violence - but a horrific fact remains that any politician who engaged in a hate crime against someone on the grounds of race, sexuality, disability - any politician who was convicted of child abuse - they would find themselves prosecuted to an extent where they would summarily lose their elected office.

But crimes against women have to be more serious to merit that kind of punishment. So a politician may get a caution for assaulting his wife, he may keep his head down, he may take whatever steps it takes to mollify his CLP or constituency association. He may by some miracle get reselected and perhaps in some seats - win the seat again.

You might think that I have in the forefront of my mind the MP currently on bail - but I have another case in mind and it's the reason why I chose not to stand again as a Councillor after one term of four years in the London Borough of Redbridge where I live.

A few years ago, a Labour councillor of some standing, reputed to have been drunk at a function - told a newly elected Conservative Councillor, that he wanted to rape her.

If he had apologised to her the next day or even shortly after that, things may have turned out differently. But he didn't and so she made a complaint to the Standards Board.

It took the Standards board something like a year to come to complete its investigation, hold a hearing and come to the conclusion that he was guilty, though on the basis that he had been a Councillor for over twenty years, they gave him a reprimand and told him, in short, never to do anything wrong again.

But in that year he had told everyone who would listen that that woman was a liar. He sought to undermine her credibility as an honest individual. He colluded with his old friends in the Conservative group to put pressure on her to let the matter drop - and after he was found guilty he refused even to apologise.

I found this behaviour a violation far in excess of his original stupidity for which he should have grovelled an apology and perhaps, most charitably, been suspended for a few weeks, if his apology had been accepted.

But by that time we were in the final year before the Council Elections, the context in which the Labour Party then had to investigate him for bringing the party into disrepute.

This seemed to me beyond doubt - not least because  his tactics were so chillingly reminiscent of those of actual rapists when they are contesing their charges.

However, I was wrong. I was told by a senior official of the party that they dare not exceed the punishment of the Standards Board or they might be open to a legal challenge. I was told by Senior members of the Labour Group - even by those who agreed with me - to let the matter drop for the sake of the election.

And when the LGC re-accepted him onto the local panel of approved candidates, I decided not to stand for selection again. Kathy, the Conservative Councillor did the same. And the man who never apologised represents Labour to this day in one of the safest Labour wards in the Borough.

I'm not saying he beat his wife by the way. But after all this time I really ought to get to my point.

I think crimes against women, particularly domestic violence, are under-punished. While that is the case, I would like to see any politician convicted for domestic violence - even if it's discharged with a caution - I would like to see that person immediately expelled from whatever elected position they hold.

You can probably tell this has been on my mind for some time. If you have taken the trouble to read this and get this far, I'd really be grateful to know your thoughts.

thanks

Alex