yet more vile spoutings from, as Stephen Fry beautifully referred to it, "the paper any self respecting person wouldn't be caught dead reading" on Harriet Harman's attempt to outlaw the defence of 'infidelity' in murder cases, i.e. a man (or woman, though the defence is overwhelmingly used by men in cases such as these) "potentially escaping with a charge of manslaughter if their wife was having an affair".
Let's just have a little nosey at the headline shall we...
I struggle to breathe reading the headline through the rage, I really do. By the end of the article, I was in need of emergency resuscitation.
We are now all too familiar with this rag of a paper, disguising itself as journalism, beating Harriet Harman and her disgusting feminism down at every opportunity, just remember the LESSONS ABOUT WIFE BEATING AT THE AGE OF FIVE: IN THE WEEK HH TAKES CHARGE YET ANOTHER FEMINIST INITIATIVE gem we got from this rotten corrupt and morally defunct publication in August.
We've recently had a woman all us girlies can be proud of, no not Harriet who has fought for an equality bill which as Brown said at conference will "change this country for the better and forever", don't be ridiculous, I mean the passionate purveyor of female rights DM columnist Amanda Platell who probably sees her stints on Richard and Judy's sofa defending Kate Middleton's choice to "wait for Wills" as doing her bit for the struggle. She eloquently and poignantly suggests,
Feminist? Ms Harman is a zealot whom history will judge to have done more to hinder the progress of women in the 21st century than any Page 3 bimbo.
But we can easily dismiss that as, well, 'bitchy' tripe. It's when this publication, which I cannot bring myself to call a newspaper ventures into the realm of the real issue that I get scared. Harriet Harman was calling for a change. As she says herself, quoted in the piece -
'For centuries the law has allowed men to escape a murder charge in homicide cases by blaming the victim...Ending the provocation defence in cases of "infidelity" is an important law change and will end the culture of excuses.'
Yes, it has and yes it would. How can a law, which seems medieval in it's foundations, be upheld as a legitimate defence today? And how can a publication, along with a High Court judge (heaven knows, by the way...) chastise a minister for trying to put a stop to it?
I don't know... but yet again I find myself defending the easily defensible against the indefensible. If that makes sense... Nevertheless, Harriet, I ask you to wear this with pride -




Like he says, from left to centre left, moi, Kerry McCarthy MP, JP himself and Grace Fletcher-Hackwood... all at Tweet4Victory event.
