Review of Domestic Violence Policies in England and Wales

In 2011 The School of Social Work, Faculty of Health and Social Care Sciences 
Kingston University and St George’s, University of London issued a Review of Domestic Violence Policies in England & Wales produced by Anna Matczak, Eleni Hatzidimitriadou & Jane Lindsay.

It is quite a considered, comprehensive document and well worth reading.

It comes with the proviso, clearly stated on the first page:

"To be cited as follows: Matczak, A., Hatzidimitriadou, E., and Lindsay, J. (2011). Review of Domestic Violence policies in England and Wales. London: Kingston University and St George‘s, University of London. ISBN: 978-0-9558329-7-0"

 as they, collectively, presumably own the copyright.

A perusal of the review discovers the following sentence on page 21:

"Since the 1970s women‘s organisations have called for criminalisation of domestic violence. This campaign became a strategy, a successful one in many respects (Hester, 2005) in that it led the seriousness of problem of domestic violence being recognised and promoted policy development (Radford & Gill, 2006)."

It is noticeable that the sources for this statement are correctly attributed as 'Hester, 2005' and 'Radford & Gill, 2006'. This is no more than one would expect from an academic review. Superfluous quotation marks are, however, absent but the correct usage of 'women's organisations' is also noted.

Just a minute. This rings a bell surely. Let's go back to the letter in The Gazette. There we find the following sentence:

"Since the 1970s woman's organisations have called for the criminalisation of "domestic violence". This campaign became a strategy, a successful one in many respects: in that it led to the seriousness of the problem of "domestic violence" being recognised, and that it also promoted policy development."

Hang on. I'm finding it hard to spot the differences here. Aside from the lack of citations there is only the error of using the singular 'woman's' instead of the plural 'women's' and if it was 'woman's organisations' which woman was it that had all of those organisations?

It would take an awful lot of monkeys, on an equivalent number of typewriters, an inordinate length of time to come up with that duplication. But it is just possible - isn't it?

Then there is the matter of the extra colon and the missing 'to' & 'the' ...