Woolwich: The result of 40 years of teaching people to feel, rather than to act.

The three women who stood up to the Woolwich killers

With three exceptions, those members of the British public on the scene when jihadists murdered Lee Rigby and then beheaded him showed that they still had the capacity for horror, but that they had lost their ability for action.  They tweeted, they photographed, they videotaped, they exclaimed, they emoted . . . and that was all.

The three exceptions were three women.  Two were a mother-daughter team, deeply devout (I assume Christian, although the article doesn’t say), who believed that “no man should die alone,” and who therefore sat with Rigby’s poor, mutilated body:

Gemini Donnelly-Martin, 20, and her mother Amanda Donnelly, confronted the suspected killers and asked the attackers if they could be by Drummer Lee Rigby’s side.

Their refusal to be cowed by the terrorists won praise from all quarters, including Downing Street.

[snip]

Amanda’s son Simeon, 22, said the two women acted out of love.

He said: ‘My mother was just driving past and she saw something and wanted to try and help.  ‘She just showed a bit of motherly love. She just did what any mother would have done.

‘She felt that could have been me lying down there in the street. She just felt for the poor guy.

‘No man should have to die like that in the street with no-one around him.

[snip]

Gemini said that they had simply done what they thought was right.

She told the Daily Mirror: ‘We did what anyone would do. We just wanted to take care of the man. It wasn’t brave. Anyone would have done it. It had to be done. They (the killers) said women could pass.’

‘The only thing people need to worry about is that poor man’s mum. We are grateful, though, for what people are saying about us.’

When it became apparent Drummer Lee Rigby was beyond their help, they shielded his body from further desecration by his savage attackers.

Amanda, 44, insisted she be allowed to pray for the dead man even when confronted by one of the killer. Kneeling at his side, she cradled him gently, seemingly unfazed by his horrific wounds.

Gemini said “we did what anyone would do.”  But the fact is that, in today’s England, what anyone would do was . . . nothing.

The other person to act was Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, who went right up to one of the killers and just confronted him:

At the same time, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett remonstrated with the fanatics, despite her fears they would attack again.

The Cub Scout leader and mother of two asked them to hand over their bloodstained weapons and listened to their hate-filled tirade about wanting to ignite ‘war in London’.

She selflessly tried to draw the men’s attention, later saying: ‘Better me than a child.’

It’s deeply disturbing that London’s streets could muster so little action.  These women’s bravery and compassion — behavior that would be exemplary in any circumstances — stands out especially clearly given the stark, frozen backdrop against which they acted.

Loyau Kennett talking to a killer

In modern Western cultures, people are inundated with “feeling” phrases about fellowship and compassion and diversity and any other navel-gazing term you can say.  But they are told — always — don’t act.  Feel, but don’t do anything.  You might get hurt.  You might hurt someone.  You might get sued.  It might be a cultural misunderstanding.  You might be viewed as an overbearing white imperialist, or a sexist, or a racist.  Whatever you do, please be sure that your feelings are in accordance with all that is light and good under diversity and political correctness, but for Gaia’s sake, don’t just do something, stand there.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • JKB

    What would you have them do?  The people were disarmed.  They had not way to effectively stop these individuals. I read they stopped men from approaching but permitted the women.  You will note, they did not permit these women to try to save the soldier.  
     
    So this action you want?  What would it be?  
     
    The men, after their attack, were no longer an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  Sure you could argue that the were to the soldier who lay dying but how should two armed men be stopped in any reasonable fashion?  But in Britain especially, any aggression against them would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the very prosecutors who will now coddle these killers.  The police, unarmed, and did not use team tactics to intervene.  Instead they blocked off the road and waited for the armed police to arrive after David Cameron and the others in British political and police leadership had their tea.  Now they are aghast but this is the Britain they created.  It was a foreseeable consequence of their efforts to disarm and neuter the British public.  
     
    I have read many commentators who ask, “Where were the men?”  To them I say screw you.  You wanted law abiding people disarmed or at least went along with it, then do not ask why men do not rush to die for your stupidity.  

  • http://vinnysrants.blogspot.com vinny

    Jacob,
    You have a point, but this occurred right next to an army barracks and it went on for 20 minutes. Twenty minutes is a long enough time for someone to come up with a weapon and remove these vermin. If no gun, then someone could have brought a bat and bashed their sculls in. Even a walking stick would have done the job.

  • erisguy

    What would you have them do?
     
    Having just watched Moslem terrorists run over a man with a car to incapacitate him prior to mutilating him, one obvious action should have occurred to them. I see plenty of cars on the street. Each one a weapon.
     
    It’s also my understanding that the soldier’s barracks were near. Telling his mates might rank a good second choice.

  • JKB

    I did wonder why gate guards at the base did not or could not act.  Are they not armed?
     
    Also, it is somewhat amusing to see the British reaction for when they need to arm up.  The bases are now on a security alert along with soldiers in full kit with assault weapons when carrying a sidearm would suffice to stop these threats.  Prior to this, there has also been in the Daily Mail pictures of armed police patrolling a housing project due to some violence there.  But these police are again, carrying assault rifles or at least, semi-automatic versions.  Again, assault troops are imposed when simply providing a handgun and other standard US police kit would suffice.
     
    Each one a weapon, the use of which would have you arrested and charged with murder.  And the British government has shown they are ready and able to arrest and prosecute non-immigrants for self defense much less aggressive action.  
     
    The use of a car during the attack could be justified.  The use of a firearm to stop a personal attack as one tried to reach and render aid to the soldier, a reasonable, not threatening action, could be justified as self defense and defense of the fallen who is in imminent need of medical aid.  But the willful running down of murderers who are not an imminent threat, i.e., on attack, would get you a murder charge.  

  • JKB

    Oh, I almost forgot.  We should also note that for most of this period, after the attack before armed police arrived.  The police were in fact there down at the end of the road blocking traffic.  
     
    Taking action when official police response, however ineffective and bureaucratic, was underway would be used against you.  “Why did you act when the danger wasn’t imminent and the police were on the scene?”
     
    Also, by acting while the police were getting themselves organized would be an embarrassment to the government and would be prosecuted/persecuted to fullest extent possible.  

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I wonder if this now decreased soldier was one of the clients that sought training from Tim Larkin, and was denied that opportunity because the British political class refused to admit Larkin to the UK, on account of his training being “too violent” for the British. The towns that received riots and were the one who paid Larkin and arranged for his visit, were told that this was “too violent” for them to have and that it would cause societal instability.
     
    Yea.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Vinny, the sad fact is that, in Britain, you are considered the criminal if you use a weapon to defend yourself. There was a pathetic case not long ago where an elderly woman was prosecuted for slamming a window on the fingers of a burglar that was trying to break into her home.
    I’m afraid that the Brits (and Swedes) are well on their way to full dhimmitude. 

  • JohnC

    Western civilizations seem to be giving one another some type of socialist cancer.
    One of the worst symptoms is a fear of testosterone.
    This results in administrations filled top to bottom with beta males writing policies that punish alpha male behavior in their fellow countrymen.

  • SADIE

    here’s a great article by Oleg Atbashian on the totalitarian nature of the left.

    How is it possible to hold so many mutually exclusive beliefs? To preach tolerance and be so intolerant? To grieve for terror victims and justify terrorism? To stand up for workers and destroy their jobs? To march for peace and defend the militants? To denounce corruption and vote for the corrupt? To espouse non-violence and commit violent acts? To speak of liberties and promote government dictate? To bolster feminism and deride successful women? To cheer gays and aid the gay-bashers in the Middle East? To champion minorities as a group and hold them down as individuals? To care about the children and condemn them to intellectual mutilation? To denounce guns and hire armed bodyguards? To support the troops and side with their murderers? To demand love and be full of hate? The bad news is that these are not contradictions. Worse yet, sensible people will keep losing ground to those whom they shrug off as bumbling sacks of absurdities, for as long as they don’t understand that the above paradoxical statements aren’t, in fact, oxymorons, but contain a very consistent logic. In this sense, the best key to unlocking the mystery of the Progressive Chauvinist mind, breaking the leftist code, and discerning their collectivist morality is a statement attributed to Karl Marx, which, regardless of whether he wrote it or not, is perfectly aligned with the moral philosophy of Progressive Chauvinism:

    “The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    When a person fully comprehends evil, only then will he understand the Left.

  • Danny Lemieux

    Sadie, I would alter that last quote as follows:
    ““The meaning of peace is the elimination of opposition to socialism”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Slaves do not and cannot have the right to oppose their Masters. What an unjust world that would be for society and human progress.
     
     

  • Pingback: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove()