As an offshoot from Lady Bashing, I think it's time to dedicate a thread to those women for whom the Mail reserves its utmost contempt: criminals, violent women, yobettes. How could they? Such behaviour is not only antisocial, it's unladylike. Hope there'll be pictures!

Today there's a celebrity victim special:

TOWIE's Sam Faiers is rushed to hospital for brain scan after girl gang beat her unconscious, as sister Billie is also attacked

The bit about her being unconscious appears to be an embellishment added by the sub-editor.

What interests the Mail and its readers about this story, apart from it being yet another opportunity to write about their favourite tv show, is that the attackers were "girls". Thus the attack is labelled a "catfight" and there is much description of hair being yanked, etc. The Mail's gendered reporting is picked up by the gazers, who have presumably clicked on the story to look at pictures of a semi-famous woman being battered:

When women get together they become "hardened…stoical…warriors". Thugs, lassies on the pull, feminists — what's the difference? They're all "silly". It's enough to drive you out of the country — to a place where (Cooking master must hope) the women will be soft, yielding, tame.

But it's not only the attackers in this case who were women. The victims were too. Several of the commenters feel the need to defend them:

These posts insinuate that, at first glance, you might believe the TOWIE women had it coming to them. Why would that be? One of them had her bag stolen and then got beaten up trying to get it back. Yes, but she's female and cheap-looking.

Brief shout to the inevitable irrelevant misogynist:

No they're not. No they aren't. And this was an attack on women, so what's your point?

They then went to a park to get the phone back, and the attack hasn't been reported to the police? Something strange here.

Caught on CCTV: Moment female thug robbed disabled man in a wheelchair


Contrast that article's focus on the attacker with this article's long lead on the (female) victims. It's only in the eleventh paragraph that the suspects are introduced, as "two teenagers" (presumably male, though the Mail doesn't specify). Finally, in the twelfth paragraph, it's revealed that the police want to question "a further three males".

It's not exactly news that the Mail genders the women in its stories. But contrast again with the story of the "shopkeeper" who repelled "an armed robber", a "32-year-old thief", where the focus is on the drama not the identity of the people involved.

A textbook example of distortion in the front-page presentation of this story:



From the picture and headline, you'd think the woman, Lucy Owen, was the ringleader of this "massive brawl". But the sentencing doesn't bear this out:

Also on the front page we have:

'She-Devil' mother and her feral teenage children left two men for dead after bottle beating and stabbing

'She-devil' is a gendered label which taps into a centuries-old mythology. The Mail illustrates the story with this picture and caption:



I haven't seen the film, but from what I know about it, the she-devil is a rather ambiguous, perhaps even a sympathetic character — not someone who would encourage her kids to attack a neighbour with a broken bottle.

We're not done yet:

'I just f***ing killed someone and it was ahmazing': The sick diary entries of teen who strangled and stabbed neighbour, 9

A third criminal young woman on the front page — again pictured. This is a sad, horrible story, and the Mail's report only tips into sensationalism when it reports that the killer "was active on social networking sites and had the above photos on Facebook". The photos add nothing.

Meanwhile, today being a day of the week that contains a 'y', there's a story about 'Foxy Knoxy', the Mail's favourite young female (non-)criminal. There's also "Middle-aged village school teacher outrages parents with Facebook posts about her 'hard-partying, drinking, swearing and sh*****g'", which isn't worthy of comment. The only other violent crimes that earn a mention in the Mail are further down the front page, and were committed by: "Asian gang", "yet ANOTHER Lithuanian rapist", a "transsexual", Anders Breivik, and some "teens" who, being neither racialised nor gendered in the article, are presumably white.

The Daily Mail: where white British men's crimes go unreported.



* I've altered this quote because the original contains an error: it adds Owen to the list of "sixteen men".

I hadn't seen this thread before.

That "woman eggs on violent men" thing is incredible.

Headline now changed to showcase the Mail's command of 1920s American slang.
Ninety years from now it would likely read -

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

Because the colour of her hair is so intrinsic to the story.

Think of the most chilling, infamous photo of a female criminal in British legal history. The connection is.....?

This challenges the Mailites biblical view of what women should be like - quiet, obedient, shamed-faced and meek, speak when you're spoken to, be married off and raising the kids.

Mailites fear the thought of women having a sex life (so they'll complain if they can't get it done), going out and generally not being pigeonholed in the role they think women should be in. The violence is incidental, they just don't want to deal with the fact that some women, like some men, are not nice people. Patronising, outdated and mysoginistic? You bet.

Good point.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

I meant "violent woman eggs on men", obviously.

Look, surely the point is that nobody should be chucking eggs at anybody else.

_________________
I'm a nasty, violent lefty. You cunt.

You sure about that?

_________________
You may say I'm a dreamer.... but I'm not the only one....

A double dose today. Each story leads with the female accomplice (both are women of colour; both are pictured on the front page) even though they did not carry out the killings and were not facing charges as serious as the men involved.

Female medical student and 'hitmen' locked up for 40 years for brutal honey trap murder in revenge for sex attack

The first word of the headline is telling. The rest is gendered, too, especially "honey trap", with its allusion to a sticky sweet substance which gleams gold (see "blonde molls" above).

The first sub-head contains the inevitable verb:

Animalistic, mesmerising, cold-blooded — "lured" feeds every crappy stereotype going. Why not "invited" or "asked"?

It's only with sub-head #4 that we discover "Mahil claimed she had been raped by Singh six months before his death." The "claimed" is very important here. The report uses distancing language throughout in relation to the same incident: "It emerged during the trial [a nice neutral objective-sounding construct] that Mr Singh tried to rape Mahil six months before he died" and "After the attempted sex attack". Yet the judge concluded: "Exactly six months to the day before his death in the very bedroom where he was to be attacked, he had sexually assaulted you."

The headline is also misleading with regards to sentencing. Mahil, the "female honey trapper", got six years, while her accomplices were given much larger sentences of 22 and 12 years, respectively, adding up to a total of 40. By insinuating that Mahil had been sentenced to 40 years herself, as the headline certainly does, the Mail gives the impression that her part in the "brutal" crime must have been greater than it was. So the woman's rape is played down, her part in the killing is played up. But she's a convicted criminal; nobody is going to object.

One last point: the caption beneath the photo reads: "Honeytrap: Mundill Mahil decided to 'play God' when she recruited the men to carry out the fatal attack on businessman Gagandip Singh." The quote does not appear in the story; either it's been cut, or the Mail has made it up. "Playing God" has enormous connotations — it's what Harold Shipman was accused of — and in this case I really don't see what it refers to. She decided to have Mr Singh beaten up: this wasn't premeditated murder. And although I understand the desire to be sensitive to Mr Singh's family, is it really necessary to go down the whole "businessman" angle? He was a rapist. Puffing up his professional achievements isn't going to disguise that.

The second story is:

Teenage girl bought knives from Argos and used Facebook to orchestrate Tube station gang fight in front of horrified commuters that left boy, 15, stabbed to death

This is a little harder to analyse as the case is ongoing: there are 20 defendants, 19 of them men. The Mail, though, is interested in Victoria Osoteku. She's not only a "girl" (19 years old — a woman) but a teenager. Ugh. The link with what is for Mail readers an otherworld of urban chavviness is made via the references to Argos, to Facebook and to gangs, and via a photo of the accused, who is black.

According to the Mail's report, Osoteku "was today found guilty of being the ringleader behind the savage killing". It's something as small as a definite article that distorts the story here. "Mark Heywood QC, prosecuting, said: 'She was one of those who set up and organised the confrontation that led to the death.'" Equally, she "bought a set of knives from Argos with a 17-year-old youth at lunchtime and gave them to the gang. She was also one of the teenagers responsible for setting up the fatal showdown." The court has found her guilty, yet the Mail still finds it necessary to exaggerate her role, however subtly, in pursuit of its agenda.

Compare, also, the portrayal of Osoteku as cynical and detached in her role as "orchestrator" and "ringleader" with the depiction of the young men jailed for murder and manslaughter in the same case, which reads like an action movie and is full of words like "ferocity" and "merciless".

I posted about Mundill Mahil in lady bashing but it can go here to.

So, three people are sentenced for the murder of Gagandip Singh. Harinder Shoker, 20, was given a life sentence for murder and will serve at least 22 years (which doesn't mean he'll be out of course). Darren Peters, 20, was jailed for 12 years for manslaughter. Whereas, the instigator Mundill Mahill was given 6 years for GBH. Mr Singh, was killed in revenge after he allegedly attempted to rape 20-year-old. It was only intended to be an attack which escalated into murder. For the balanced story read the BBC version and Kent Online version


Because she was only charged with GBH and didn't go as far as the other two individuals. If this was section 20 GBH then the maximum sentence is 5 years. So the sentence reflects the crime. link


Again, it was an appropriate sentence for the crime.



She wasn't let off because of her gender. If you read the story properly you'd realise it was a revenge attack that turned to murder. As Judge Worsley QC outlined her part in the murder.

He said: "You did not intend his death but you had decided that he should be seriously beaten. You witnessed the start of the attack and then you left the room. You heard him shout your name. You did nothing to save or protect him.

"You did not call the police although it was clear he had been silenced and driven away."








Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1noktCXwR

_________________
My blog: https://stevenplrose.wordpress.com/