The Guardian is up in arms again. ‘“Shocking” toll of women killed by men renews call for safe spaces’, screams the headline. The article reports on a ‘census’ by the charity Women’s Aid. The facts it has produced are disturbing.

Of the 113 women killed by men in England, Wales and Northern Ireland last year, 85 died in their homes, it states. Nine in ten women killed during 2016 died at the hands of someone they knew.

Katie Ghose, chief executive of Women’s Aid, said: ‘More needs to be done to address men’s fatal violence against women, as once again the Femicide Census reveals fatalities not as isolated incidents but as part of a repeated pattern of male violence against women.’ Thus all men are once again condemned. All women are their potential victims.

These are unpleasant statistics. Women do not deserve to be murdered, let alone assaulted. But the statistics quoted do not tell the whole story. In fact, no one deserves to be murdered or assaulted. Who knew? And as for a ‘Femicide Census’, it is difficult to see what this ‘census’ actually is other than selective quotation from official statistics. Except that the official homicide statistics for the year ending March 2017 have not been published.

Proper statistics come from the Office for National Statistics. They cover England and Wales for the year to March 2016. They are official and comprehensive. They provide a different picture.

There were 571 homicides (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in the year ending March 2016 in England and Wales. There were 9.9 offences of homicide per million population, and the homicide rate by males (13.8 per million) was more than twice that by females (6.0 per million).

But here is the clincher: While women were far more likely than men to be killed by partners or ex-partners (44 per cent of female victims compared with 7 per cent of male victims), men were more likely than women to be killed by friends or acquaintances (35 per cent of male victims compared with 13 per cent of female victims).

All this puts the murder statistics in perspective. Yes, men kill more than women do, but men kill way more men than they kill women. Male victims also know their male attackers in reasonable percentages. This is ignored by Women’s Aid. More than twice as many men are killed than women. More men than women are killed by men they know. Apparently this is not shocking enough for the Guardian.

The problem is not actually violence against women by men, but violence by men. Women are not special victims of men. Some men are violent. Note that there is no men’s group asking for ‘safe spaces’ for male victims of violence committed by men. Perhaps the difference is the fact that the women killed are or were in sexual relationships with their attackers. This only means that the relationships between male victims and their killers are not sexual. But a sexual relationship is just a subset in the group of social relationships. In this age of ‘equality’, surely it makes sense to consider all relationships as alike? Women’s Aid does not think so. It regards heterosexual relationships as more important than others when women are killed. It seems it is only in homicide that this is important, but perhaps it is because it can be used to discredit heterosexuality.

The problem with using statistics selectively is that it promotes disproportionate responses. There is a small group of men who will murder people in their social circle. That is the most reasonable interpretation of the statistics. Not all men murder. It is unfair and discriminatory to protect only women when twice as many men are being killed every year. However Women’s Aid does not focus on the big picture, and it demonises all men in the process as potential killers. Certainly it does not drill down into the backgrounds of the killers, simply stating: ‘The abuse of women occurs across society, through all classes, in all communities, across each religion, race, ethnicity and culture, and at all ages’, reinforcing the bogus mantra that all men everywhere are to blame. This is despite the fact that this country has experienced large-scale migration from countries where women are second-rate citizens, with entrenched cultures of rape, mutilation and murder. Women’s Aid seems to demonstrate a similar kind of mentality to that which saw hundreds of girls raped thousands of times in Rotherham.

The report appears to have been compiled from Freedom of Information requests to the police, some of which were partially declined, so the figures are incomplete. Despite this, Women’s Aid feels confident to make pronouncements. The background of the victims is also incomplete. In 2015, only nine out of 119 female murder victims were classed as White British, compared with 24 for ‘no FOI response’, and 23 for ‘unknown’. There might be a disproportionate cultural background to the murders which has not been properly explored, certainly not by Women’s Aid. It is far easier to blame the entire male sex in the UK instead.

Homicide is a universal problem. It makes sense to focus on specific types of killings, but not one to the exclusion of others and not on the basis of incomplete or misleading statistics. However Women’s Aid fails the public when it tries to assert that some killings are more important than others. More men than women are the victims of homicide. More men than women know their killers socially. According to Women’s Aid and the Guardian, the death toll of men is not ‘shocking’. That alone is quite shocking. Once again, it is men who are the real victims here.


  1. It is surprising it took two ‘churnalists’ to produce the Guardian ‘article’ shows the state of journalism now post internet. Classic churnalism

    It is obvious the writers literally took Womens Aid press release at face value with no attempt to independently research the topic or further question the charities findings; and copy and paste it with some paraphrasing.

    Womens Aid is doing what it says on the tin, but we need vigilant journalists to put things in perspective.

    • I have come to the serious conclusion that ‘Research’ has been removed from the English language – no one seems to bother anymore?

  2. So men are more violent than women. Is this news? Hardly. So what does the Guardian propose doing about it ? Leech men of their excess testosterone?

    Oh, I forgot. Men and women are interchangeable in the Guardian’s parallel universe. So any readings of men having more testosterone etc must be false. Or something. ( Fill in some nature- denying ridiculous excuse here )

    • Its the “patriarchy” wot does it. A shadowy group of white men organising everything from Stonehenge onwards. They must be quite tired by now.

    • > So what does the Guardian propose doing about it ? Bleed men of their excess testosterone?

      Provide more funding to their friends at “Women’s Aid”.

  3. “More needs to be done to address men’s fatal violence against women, as once again the Femicide Census reveals fatalities not as isolated incidents but as part of a repeated pattern of male violence against women.”
    Let me translate that for you: ‘We need a sensational headline to keep the money rolling in’.

    • Women’s Aid is a ‘charidee’ and I’d looking to generate a ‘need’ for ‘action’ that will get government money given to it. Since it receives support from the Guardian it will have leftie friends/relatives on board seated in sinecures, with plenty of time and money allowing the m to pursue their political careers.
      Nothing new here.

  4. There is a set of stats here that nobody wants to talk about. That is the bad outcomes of boys and girls (but mostly boys) from fatherless homes.
    Everything from drug abuse and dropping out of school, right up to assault, rape and murder, there is an undeniable causal link (this is why no-one wants to discuss it).

    The most powerful things that the Guardian could do that would reduce violence against women in the long term, would be to promote marriage and campaign against divorce.

    • Kids live in fatherless homes in large numbers because Western legal systems in general are designed to reward women for divorce in order to increase lawyers’ profits while feminists encourage and spread hatred of men as part of the leftist strategy of dividing target societies into antagonistic groups.

      • And this is particularly acute in the English speaking Western world. Its not that other western nations don’t have these problems its just that they are of a different order in Anglophone countries. This seems strong evidence that there is nothing inevitable about the degraded state of our societies, no need for the fatalism that seems to affect the debate here.

    • Exactly so. Then we wouldn’t have to invest vast amounts into recreating families through Fostering, Adoption, Male role model mentoring, “wrap around services” and so on.

    • Sorry, I genuinely believe it is more harmful for children to grow up in a family where the parents are staying together but do not get on with each other. If the parents have got to a stage where they hate each other to the point where they want a divorce then it is not healthy for the kids; let the divorce go ahead.

      • I think there will always be some divorce. That is inescapable. My real point is that there should remain a strong paternal presence/influence in the lives of young people. That of course requires the courts to act fairly in custody arrangrments and also for some feckless dads to step up.

        • And, if I may say, for Bitter Mothers not to use children as Weapons against their father. You see it happen so often, he may be a ‘B’ but so can you be a ‘B’, the fact that their Parents are ‘B’s’ is not the Kids fault, but they pay the price?

          • Very true,
            The vindictive isolation of a child from a parent has recently become an offense. I would like to see some examples made. The weaponising of kids has become far to common in our society.

      • The problem is often not that they hate one another, but that they are bored with their relationship. If more effort was put into marriage preparation and thinking through getting through bad patches in marriage plus deciding that your children deserve a stable home, then marriage becomes the institution it is intended to be. And I say that has having divorced over 30 years ago and been married for the second time 26 years. The children never really recover, their world changes forever.

      • > If the parents have got to a stage where they hate each other to the point where they want a divorce then it is not healthy for the kids; let the divorce go ahead.

        That’s called “fault divorce”, and it’s been around since forever.

      • there is an odd anomaly in that ‘common law’ ‘marriages’ fail at a much higher rate than actual married couples.
        Apparently studies have shown they tend to arrange their finances differently too, so being more prepared for break up.
        It sort of implies a lower level of commitment at the start.
        As for the children, they are not going to be aware of the subtleties of their parents’ relationship and are going to be disorientated by their absolute reference point that is their parents disappearing.

      • Agree but the problem is a well managed Divorce is one thing but when the Kids get used as Weapons then, I think, terrible damage is done? Can never understand why it happens.

      • You may think this is the case but the stats suggest otherwise.

        The most dangerous and the poorest outcomes for children are when they are raised in households with non biological males, especially dangerous if the males have not made a formal commitment in some way to the mother.

    • > The most powerful things that the Guardian could do that would reduce violence against women in the long term, would be to promote marriage and campaign against divorce.

      “Patriarchy” = being raised with a father. “Fight against the patriarchy” is a fight against fatherhood. Guardian can’t promote ‘stable families’, as it goes against the cornerstone of feminism.

    • Quite, Denzel Washington, hardly a conservative paragon said this recently,

      “It starts at the home,” the prolific actor recently told the New York Daily News. “It starts with how you raise your children. If a young man doesn’t have a father figure, he’ll go find a father figure. So, you know, I can’t blame the system. It’s unfortunate that we make such easy work for them.”

      Boys will find somebody to emulate, I did it, you did it, we all did it, the thing is to find proper models.

  5. We need to re-invent masculinity for the modern age.

    Unreconstructed males will have to adjust to the 21st century where gender equality is an established fact of life.

    Men will have to get used to the fact that women are now becoming your equals and even superiors, in all walks of life.

  6. And of course one might observe how rare murder is in the UK compared to many other nations. It has been becoming rarer too. Hence all these stories as such lobby groups can hardly admit that the problems they use as flag waving are small and reducing (despite the population booming).. The other trick is category creep, so the supposed dramatic increase in sexual assaults is only an increase if one includes knee touching and things from the 1960s being investigated.

  7. There were 571 homicides so one must assume that, allowing for multiple killings by the same person, there were something like 500 killers.
    They seem to have omitted the most important statistic of all, how many were “trans”?
    I’m appalled that Women’s Aid should omit such an vital statistic in this day and age!

  8. ONS stats have been manipulated by women’s groups – Analysis by William Collins here –
    . Averaged over the last 11 years, 88 women are killed by their partners annually, compared with 24 men. “This transmogrification of male victims into female victims is familiar to anyone following the CPS’s VAWG reporting approach.”

  9. That appears to be a typical reaction of women’s group who don’t consider the big picture but look only at women.
    Similarly, in our courts, women appear to be treated more leniently than men for the same/similar crime but yet they still complain.
    Statistics can be abused in so many ways including the number of police fatalities in the USA where more whites are shot but we never hear of this in the media.

  10. “Male victims also know their male attackers in reasonable percentages”
    Probably through being in the same or a rival drugs gang.

  11. “Nine in ten women killed during 2016 died at the hands of someone they knew.”

    This is intended to be shocking but all this statistic really means is that completely motiveless homicide is relatively rare. Most murderers are not serial killers.

    • Indeed, it is hard to come up for a motive (in even a semi-rational mind) to kill someone one doesn’t know. Homicide has always mostly been committed by people who knew the victim, all the way back to Cain, in fact. Are there aberrations, people who merely kill for pleasure or gain? Sure, but they are outliers. Best thing to do with them is put them away for good, or put them down.

      Common sense (as per usual) is lacking in this study.

      • Some Newspapers will encourage the sensationilst element of News or even ‘adjust’ facts to make themselves look more interesting? Is this some sort of plan to confuse eyeryone – who knows!

        • A favourite trick is to express statistics in the form:

          “Every X days a woman is killed by her partner”

          Since there are somewhere north of 60,000,000 people in the UK but only 365.25 days in the year the effect is to make something rare into something that sounds commonplace.

          It might be interesting to express other mortality statistics in the “Every X days…” format – road accident fatalities perhaps, or deaths caused by medical negligence. I suspect that if one were really interested in saving female lives it might well be the case that a modest tax hike on petrol and diesel would be rather more effective than abolishing men.

  12. I read so many articles in your papers that women never go to jail for violent crimes that would land men in jail for years.

    For example that junior female doctor that slashed a man, and the judge thought she was too smart for prison and it would ruin her dream of being a heart surgeon.

    She got no jail time. Would a male doctor who slashed a woman get the same treatment?

    But feminism only want equality.

    • “Chicago Woman Who Filmed Brutal Kidnapping And Torture Of Disabled Teen Sentenced To Community Service”

      Brittany Herring Covington – who went by “Herring” on Social Media before her arreest, and “Covington” in recent reports, avoided a possible 33 years in prison on multiple counts, including a hate crime, aggravated battery and aggravated kidnapping – a charge which was dropped along with several others as part of a plea agreement.

      Cook County Circuit Judge William Hooks handed down the slap on the wrist to Covington, who pleaded guilty to a hate crime, aggravated battery and intimidation charges – telling the teen that he could have sent her to prison, but told her “I’m not sure if I did that you’d be coming out any better.”

      “Do not mess this up,” Judge Hooks said to Covington, who stood in front of him in a blue jumpsuit. Hooks is notably the first African-American president of Chicago’s Federal Bar Association, a past president of the Cook County Bar Association, and a member of the Muslim Bar Association of Chicago.

      Meanwhile, a Broward County, Florida man who vandalized a Mosque and left bacon inside was sentenced to 15 years in prison last week.

    • She has appealed about the outcome. Was she bound over for a length of time or something? It will serve her right if the Judge at appeal puts her away!

  13. The absolute majority of all infanticides are committed by mothers. Every women is a potential mother, every mother is a potential killer. I say, we must separate bloodthirsty killing mothers from victimised, helpless children at birth. Stop the child abuse by eradicating the oppressive institution of so-called “motherhood”!

  14. To reinforce the message of the article, in the year ending March 2016, and using ONS data, there were 45% more homicides of men by people they knew than homicides of women by people they knew (196 cf 135). There were five times as many male as female victims where the killer was unknown to the victim, or no suspect has been identified (199 cf 40). It is curious that Women’s Aid concentrate only on killings of women specifically by men, but ignore female killers – irrespective of whom they kill. The Women’s Aid so-called ‘femicide census’ identifies 22 women killed by a man known to them but not a partner or ex-partner. But the total females killed by someone known to them, but excluding partners/ex-partners, from the ONS data, was 58. The definition of the year in question differs, but these figures indicate that the number of women killing other females who know them is around 36 per year – not an insignificant figure – but Women’s Aid see fit to ignore it. This exposes that their agenda is more the demonization of men than it is the protection of women. Their invention of the term ’femicide’ is a clear attempt to raise killing of women to a higher status of heinousness that the mere killing of men – all part of the same agenda.

  15. 113 women killed by men in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. How about a little perspective here.

    What is the population of those three countries? I think it is a little over 60 million. Now consider how many actions and reactions take place between men and women, among that 60 million, during the course of 12 months. It must amount to countless billions. Now consider how many of those actions and reactions are aggressive or hostile: probably still in the billions. Also bear in mind that women are just as capable of being aggressive and hostile to men, as vice versa. Now consider how many of those spill over into physical violence. Certainly a much, much smaller number. Because most people of both sexes understand that, even though they may be angry, violence is hardly ever the answer. And of the few examples of violence, precisely 113 resulted in a man doing something so violent to a woman, that it led to her death.

    Now when I consider the numerous kinds of terrible things that a certain percentage of women do to men, including but not limited to marital infidelity, paternity fraud, parental alienation, false accusations, abduction of children, theft, defamation and violent assault; and also considering the extreme reluctance of the legal and judicial systems to hold women to account for such actions, several of which are in fact perfectly legal regardless of the severe damage that they do to the man on the receiving end, who may therefore reasonably conclude that he has no recourse but to take action into his own hands; and also considering how the majority of the male population shows considerable indifference to the genuine suffering of their fellow men, but will display far, far more energy in protecting and defending women against even comparatively minor threats; I can’t help but feel that for only 113 cases to have got to the stage of the man actually killing the woman, is testimony not to the innate savagery of the male sex, but on the contrary to its excessive capacity for patience, tolerance and restraint.

    Incidentally, approx. 4,200 men committed suicide in the same three countries in 2015, according to the latest statistics published by the Samaritans.

      • Agree. Does this not come under the absolutely dreadfull fact that there is an element in our Society who go to enormous trouble to find something to be ‘offended’ by/at? The recent Sex pest issue going on has got completely out of control, it would seem if a Man looks at you and simles, walks on, going about his business, you can be offended. Are you offended that he smiled at you or that he walked on by? Therein I think lies some truth. The fact that a perfecetly innocent friendly action can put a Cabinet Minister who may, just may, possibily have fleetingly touched a woman’s knee (but it could have been a tablecloth – she said) caused him to resign, because if that was not enough another woman, who he apparently told he knew how she could warm her hands, in a Flirty/Jokey manner also saw fit to comment on it publicy, a Cabinet Minister lost his whole working life? Neither woman was actually Touched, Abused or Assulted and yet the Powers that be saw fit to make such a fuss that the conquences were drastic! There is something very wrong if Adult Men and Women are unable to be in mixed Company without having a three foot exclusion zone around them? We will all have to be wearing Body-cam’s – shame they are not very attractive!

Comments are closed.