What I can't unbderstand about the Bird issues is that his GF didn't want the AVO taken out - but the police did it anyway, and won the appeal. How does an AVO be fair if the person it is supposed to protect doesn't want it?
Who is behind the AVO?
Sometimes the facts as they are known mean that an authority (in this case the police/court) can deem on balance that someone is unable to decide what is in their best interests.
This could be because of their state of mind, or the state of psychological or actual dependence upon a person who is believed to have caused them harm.
One avenue that hasn't been explored by journalists that could explain the actions of police/courts against Kate's will are the conditions of Kate's visa and conditions of being able to stay in the country.
I believe it has been reported that she is on a student visa, and in my understanding these are usually time limited to one year. Her intention to apply for extension to continue her relationship with Bird in Australia could be dependent on them being able to prove that they have formed a relationship and have been living together as a couple (with him as an Australian citizen) for a continuous set period of time.
The AVO gets in the way of those realities, and hence gives the police/court reason to enforce the AVO against her wishes, having deemed her decision-making on the issue impaired due to the circumstances.
All a bit much for the likes of a neanderthal like Bird to understand...
