Let me spell this out very clearly for the hard of thinking

Apart from the men who pretend to be women in women’s prisons, the vast majority of women in the prison estate are incarcerated for non violent crimes.

There are a lot of women in prison for petty 'crime' so often borne from poverty, addiction, lack of education, and assisting, or carrying the can for, male partners.
It's so sad.

I don't know if this is still true but a few years back I read that the most common crime that women are in prison for is not paying their TV licence. For men it's violent crimes. And men are less likely than women to get prison sentences for minor shit like not paying their tv licence or petty shoplifting

Yep - I agree.
All the women in prison for shop lifting and TV licence evasion should absolutely be freed so that the estates can be used for violent male criminals.
That is what you meant, isn’t it?

QED ⬆️ ⬇️

Which is, presumably, why OP added the proviso ‘on the whole’ …

But at least she was correct with the
‘I’ve clearly failed to explain this in simple enough terms’ bit.
🙄

The really laughable thing is that each and every one helps to make the OP's point.

The arguments are so weak - fallacious / illogical / performatively Homer-Simpson-esque - they mostly reinforce the point OP was making.

Where that's not immediately the case, they provide a platform on which to post counter-arguments that are typically so damning that they reinforce the OP's point.

Above all, though, these attempts to ridicule/challenge OP demonstrate in real time her biggest point of all: that there actually is an urgent need to say what she does in her OP - to raise awareness of it, and force society to look these ugly truths in the face.

Because resistance to doing this, and by extension to addressing the issue, is - as this thread so clearly shows - still very much an issue.

Fucking hell, 8 pages in before I saw this thread and the desperation in some of these responses in trying to make the OP wrong, or to wilfully misunderstand, or pretend it wasn’t written well enough to understand, is utterly, utterly laughable and also, sadly, horrifyingly predictable.

And given the stats, I think it’s fair to risk assess and treat men differently from women.

No wonder you’re using mumsnet then to discuss this

Do you only have sons? @KillTheTurkey

Phew

The "baby murder" thing seems to be a popular trope at the moment to deflect from a focus on male violence. Curiously, it never seems to take into account things like:

• the proportionate number of women raising kids alone, meaning:

• far greater contact with children
• far greater pressure and associated mental illness

• with regard to that, the proportionate role of mental illness, PND etc. & contrasting contexts to & motivations for killing

For every Rose West there are 100 Fred Wests.

Yes and as your post shows the older the child (under 18) is the more likely the killer will be a male.

Males kill female at a higher rate.
Males kill males at a higher rate.

And for anybody who wants to read more about the "stats/trends" :

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/global-study-on-homicide.html

Although TBF whenever someone posts something about other people being stupid, I always have a slight suspicion they may be referring to themselves. It's not hugely helpful in any discussion.

Is this your approach and style when you teach your classes @KillTheTurkey ? When you discuss current affairs with your own sons?

The problem is you can't fix stupid and there are some very stupid people.

It presumed a modicum of common sense, that's all. Like the Supreme Court judgement. To (literally - and what a line that was!) use part of today's judgement, the OP presumes that most readers aren't “divorced from reality and from any sensible model of human behaviour".

Alternatively, to be as syntactically pedantic as some posters are choosing to be, it could also be explained thusly: in the OP, the demonstrative word "these" refers to the 99, 95-98 and 90% stats occurring immediately prior to it (ie., to proportions of crimes committed by males). As demonstratives tend to do. Despite other posters' best efforts, this is grammatically and logically sound. Those crimes committed by males should "never, ever" be referred to as having a female perpetrator.

NB. Those pedantic posters may also note that I chose "presume", with its connotations of a strong evidence base, to be polite! I think "assume" and "presume" both work in the OP, but agree that "presume" reflects the exceptionally high percentages more aptly, emphasising that this is not an issue of prejudice, but rather of probability.

I'm honestly not usually this Hermione-ish or sarky, but seriously...

(Well, OK, I am a bit Hermione-ish tbh... 😅)

Ah thank you. I did not know that. The law has changed since my law school days (for the better).