In 2001, Marsh became one of the youngest women in this country to be convicted of rape
- From: "MCP" <gf010w5035@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:17:22 +0100
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1040334/JAN-MOIR-The-female-species-just-deadly-male--introducing-Mails-brilliant-new-columnist.html
News that there has been a surge in the number of violent attacks by women
would come as no surprise to David Morley. If he were still alive, that is.
If the poor man were still around to tell his terrible story.
Four years ago, Morley was beaten to death walking home from his bar job in
Central London. His shift had finished. He had every reason to expect to
live to see another dawn. Instead, his fate was to meet a 14-year-old girl
called Chelsea O'Mahoney, the ringleader of a gang of youths roaming the
streets looking for trouble.
O'Mahoney instigated an unprovoked attacked on Morley and filmed it on her
mobile phone. She then insisted on delivering the last blow to his prone
body, like some bloodthirsty tribal queen claiming the victim's scalp.
Swinging her boot, she kicked his head as if it was a football, and laughed
as she did so. Shortly after, she went on to participate in the death of a
tramp sleeping under a railway arch nearby.
Casual savagery doesn't get much worse than that, although an 18-year- old
called Claire Marsh had a damn good try.
In 2001, Marsh became one of the youngest women in this country to be
convicted of rape. Her shocking claim to fame was to pin down a screaming
woman while encouraging a mob of hoodlums to sexually assault her.
These girl-powered attacks chill the blood of civilised people. Yet far from
being isolated incidents, they are part of a growing trend of female
brutality sweeping across the country. Government figures quietly released
this week show that violence has taken over from shoplifting as the most
common crime among women.
Last year, an average of 240 females were arrested every day for violent
attacks. And that's just the ones who were caught. Once it was a stolen
lipstick or a packet of cigarettes, now it is increasingly likely to be a
stolen life.
What has fuelled this dreadful escalation of vicious ladette behaviour?
Where has all this aggression come from? Students of human behaviour might
argue that the emancipation of women has also resulted in the
masculinisation of women.
Gang peer pressure means that all some no-hope girls want to do is ape men,
with the emphasis on the word ape. As the gender roles blur, so do the
domestic conventions that once kept women busy blackening the hearth or
embroidering kittens on Peter Pan collars. We've all moved on, this theory
suggests, but not all of us in socially successful ways.
While this may have some merit, it is obvious that the real culprit is
booze. Our unchecked culture of binge-drinking, fuelled by cheap alcohol on
tap 24 hours a day, has a lot of wrecked lives to answer for. Lack of
parental controls do not help, of course, but in most cases, the girls are
old enough to know better.
Yet I often wonder why those who profit most from this drunken state of
affairs don't face greater public condemnation for the social damage they
dish out on a daily basis. Ice and a slice? It takes on a darker meaning
every day.
How much longer can the drinks industry in this country continue to eschew
responsibility and escape censure, as increasing numbers of women end their
nights out by throwing up in the gutter and battering their boyfriends
senseless on the way home for chips? Of course, all this makes a mockery of
the Government's new proposals to reform the law on murder and domestic
violence along gender lines. The raft of changes is being fronted by Harriet
Harman, whose ossified political agenda appears to have been forged in the
heat of a feminist evening class in 1976 and has not budged since.
The main amendments up for discussion include a diktat that women who kill
abusive partners in cold blood could escape a murder conviction if they
prove they feared more violence. Meanwhile, if a man kills his wife because
he is momentarily distraught that she has been having an affair, he will no
longer be able to use the existing 'partial defence' of provocation. It will
be murder, she wrote. For the boys, at any rate.
Is Harman suggesting that it is fine to go right ahead and kill Bill,
especially if he has annoyed you for a long time? Apparently so. So why not
just quietly stab the old booby to death as he snoozes in his favourite
armchair after Sunday lunch? That will teach him not to do the washing up,
or fail to put his socks in pairs.
Yet how can a killing in cold blood ever be anything else but murder, no
matter who wields the knife? Where is the public morality in this? Why
should we tolerate it for even one second?
Harriet Harman and her cronies are determined to leave a legacy of
politically correct legislation, no matter what. She is determined to change
the law on domestic violence because men are more violent than women. They
are. But if current trends continue, they won't be for much longer.---
.
- Prev by Date: Ha Ha Ha! now we have ecofeminism
- Next by Date: Women's magazine asks for false accusers to come forward with their stories
- Previous by thread: Ha Ha Ha! now we have ecofeminism
- Next by thread: Women's magazine asks for false accusers to come forward with their stories
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
