This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Quite an interesting and positive development, if it can help in tackling street harassment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-36775398
5
6
14
19
In reply to Indy:
It's all right for you. You don't have creepy men ogling you, or making comments about your breasts, or thinking it's ok to "accidentally" touch you.
It's all right for you. You don't have creepy men ogling you, or making comments about your breasts, or thinking it's ok to "accidentally" touch you.
17
4
In reply to marsbar:
Maybe he does. There has to be some dreadful explanation for Indy's trains of thought.
Maybe he does. There has to be some dreadful explanation for Indy's trains of thought.
14
1
In reply to Indy:
It may be enlightening for you to find out what it can be like to be harassed, by talking to people who have?
I'll leave it at that.
> Have they got nothing better to do?
It may be enlightening for you to find out what it can be like to be harassed, by talking to people who have?
I'll leave it at that.
Post edited at 11:50
7
3
In reply to Timmd:
Fixed that for you.
> It may be enlightening for you to find out what it can be like to be harassed, by listening to people who have.
Fixed that for you.
7
1
In reply to marsbar:
I sympathise with you about the comments and touching but "creepy men ogling" is somewhat subjective. If it was be recorded as a crime how do on earth can the police differentiate between this and a man that you find attractive looking at you as you pass on the street?
I also suspect that none of these are actually misogynistic by definition.
> It's all right for you. You don't have creepy men ogling you, or making comments about your breasts, or thinking it's ok to "accidentally" touch you.
I sympathise with you about the comments and touching but "creepy men ogling" is somewhat subjective. If it was be recorded as a crime how do on earth can the police differentiate between this and a man that you find attractive looking at you as you pass on the street?
I also suspect that none of these are actually misogynistic by definition.
6
8
In reply to Timmd:
Your right, let's have a look:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3491650/Male-victims-sexual-haras...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violen...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/03/24/men-are-targets-of-sexual-...
http://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/opinion-is-sexual-harassment-really-always...
Harassment is not acceptable, regardless of gender. It's already a crime.
Your right, let's have a look:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3491650/Male-victims-sexual-haras...
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violen...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2016/03/24/men-are-targets-of-sexual-...
http://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/opinion-is-sexual-harassment-really-always...
Harassment is not acceptable, regardless of gender. It's already a crime.
5
In reply to timjones:
I guess one could focus on the ogling and build an argument about why it's a bad idea based on that, or think about more concrete forms of harassment instead.
I guess one could focus on the ogling and build an argument about why it's a bad idea based on that, or think about more concrete forms of harassment instead.
Post edited at 12:12
2
In reply to Timmd:
Are women incapable of ogling, and making inappropriate comments towards men? Or unwarranted physical contact?
Harassment is unacceptable regardless of gender. We already have laws and a process to deal with it? Unless we bring in a specific law for the distinction of misandry?
Hashtag "equality"
Are women incapable of ogling, and making inappropriate comments towards men? Or unwarranted physical contact?
Harassment is unacceptable regardless of gender. We already have laws and a process to deal with it? Unless we bring in a specific law for the distinction of misandry?
Hashtag "equality"
6
1
In reply to Timmd:
You can certainly do that and I wouldn't disagree with you.
My point is that the use of the word misogyny and the phrase hate crime are somewhat confusing and may be a poor choice of words if this is intended to encompass sexual harassment.
> I guess one could focus on the ogling and build an argument about why it's a bad idea based on that, or think about more concrete forms of harassment instead.
You can certainly do that and I wouldn't disagree with you.
My point is that the use of the word misogyny and the phrase hate crime are somewhat confusing and may be a poor choice of words if this is intended to encompass sexual harassment.
In reply to timjones:
It also provides a useful and timely distraction from the current and increasingly popular attention directed at anyone whose skin doesn't resemble boiled dough.
It also provides a useful and timely distraction from the current and increasingly popular attention directed at anyone whose skin doesn't resemble boiled dough.
1
3
In reply to Bootrock:
Harassment requires the same person to do something to you twice at least if I remember correctly. It doesn't cover a lot of crap that women have to put up with.
Equally I'm not saying it's ok for men to be hassled either, but it is less of a daily experience for men generally.
Harassment requires the same person to do something to you twice at least if I remember correctly. It doesn't cover a lot of crap that women have to put up with.
Equally I'm not saying it's ok for men to be hassled either, but it is less of a daily experience for men generally.
Post edited at 12:57
3
1
In reply to timjones:
I wouldn't expect leering to be a police matter, but it would be nice if the comments and the touching were.
I wouldn't expect leering to be a police matter, but it would be nice if the comments and the touching were.
3
2
In reply to marsbar:
Unwanted physical contact, Touching, is not a problem faced by women only. and it's covered by Sexual Assault laws.
Comments are covered by the Equality Act 2010. And it doesn't have to be a series of comments to make it unwanted.
It's already covered by our laws. We don't need more segregation. If your going to have a Law against Misogny, then will there be a Law against Misandry?
Unwanted physical contact, Touching, is not a problem faced by women only. and it's covered by Sexual Assault laws.
Comments are covered by the Equality Act 2010. And it doesn't have to be a series of comments to make it unwanted.
It's already covered by our laws. We don't need more segregation. If your going to have a Law against Misogny, then will there be a Law against Misandry?
Post edited at 13:18
5
1
In reply to Bootrock:
I've had my sausage and spuds checked out many a time especially when wearing cycling shorts and I've been prey to a stray hand in a crowd, mostly women, once a gay man. I've also had compliments of the kind that would be unacceptable if I'd made them to a woman.
None of this bothers me and I'd be lying if I said that in some cases I didn't quite like it, but heres the rub: I'm a big man who doesn't have to worry about a woman following me into a dark alley. There aren't a lot of precedents of women who didn't understand 'no'.
There is also that old tradition of women being submissive and demure, and I don't think a lot of men deal well with them being anything approaching equal.
> Unwanted physical contact, Touching, is not a problem faced by women only. and it's covered by Sexual Assault laws.
I've had my sausage and spuds checked out many a time especially when wearing cycling shorts and I've been prey to a stray hand in a crowd, mostly women, once a gay man. I've also had compliments of the kind that would be unacceptable if I'd made them to a woman.
None of this bothers me and I'd be lying if I said that in some cases I didn't quite like it, but heres the rub: I'm a big man who doesn't have to worry about a woman following me into a dark alley. There aren't a lot of precedents of women who didn't understand 'no'.
There is also that old tradition of women being submissive and demure, and I don't think a lot of men deal well with them being anything approaching equal.
Post edited at 14:04
5
2
In reply to Removed User:
The time's probably right for me to confess that I was responsible for all of that. I'm not gay. I just like to think of myself as persistent.
> I've had my sausage and spuds checked out many a time especially when wearing cycling shorts and I've been prey to a stray hand in a crowd, mostly women, once a gay man...
The time's probably right for me to confess that I was responsible for all of that. I'm not gay. I just like to think of myself as persistent.
8
In reply to Bootrock:
It doesn't sound like a new 'law' so much as widening the definition of hate crime, and yes if there are cases of men receiving abuse just for being men then it should include that too. My suspicion is that very little of that takes place though.
As timjones says above, harassment and misogyny are not the same thing. I suspect a great proportion of low level street harassment (wolf whistling, making appreciative comments etc) aren't driven by misogyny ie women hating. But if we, as a society, can't hammer out a workable distinction between telling a stranger they have nice legs and yelling "SLUT" at them then we've got a problem. Sometimes - and I don't think it's common but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - women experience abusive behaviour which is just a random spewing of hatred. Also, street harassment can start out seeming harmless but quickly turn to abuse if you don't respond a certain way.
But yep, unwanted touching is just sexual assault and is already covered by the law.
> It's already covered by our laws. We don't need more segregation. If your going to have a Law against Misogny, then will there be a Law against Misandry?
It doesn't sound like a new 'law' so much as widening the definition of hate crime, and yes if there are cases of men receiving abuse just for being men then it should include that too. My suspicion is that very little of that takes place though.
As timjones says above, harassment and misogyny are not the same thing. I suspect a great proportion of low level street harassment (wolf whistling, making appreciative comments etc) aren't driven by misogyny ie women hating. But if we, as a society, can't hammer out a workable distinction between telling a stranger they have nice legs and yelling "SLUT" at them then we've got a problem. Sometimes - and I don't think it's common but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen - women experience abusive behaviour which is just a random spewing of hatred. Also, street harassment can start out seeming harmless but quickly turn to abuse if you don't respond a certain way.
But yep, unwanted touching is just sexual assault and is already covered by the law.
3
2
In reply to Alyson:
Oh ok then, because you don't think it happens much, we will just ignore all facts, all situations, all potential outcomes and just pretend it doesn't happen?
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I have seen it happen in workplaces. I have seen it get ignored by management, except when it's a female victim. I have seen it get twisted and the bloke eventually got sacked (wrongly) for It. I refer you to the links I posted above. It does happen. More often then you have you "suspicions". And it isn't confined to the workplace. I have had a rather angry woman threaten me with a broke bottle, for simply being a bloke.
Will there be a misandry law? Because God help any hen party if there is.
Oh ok then, because you don't think it happens much, we will just ignore all facts, all situations, all potential outcomes and just pretend it doesn't happen?
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
I have seen it happen in workplaces. I have seen it get ignored by management, except when it's a female victim. I have seen it get twisted and the bloke eventually got sacked (wrongly) for It. I refer you to the links I posted above. It does happen. More often then you have you "suspicions". And it isn't confined to the workplace. I have had a rather angry woman threaten me with a broke bottle, for simply being a bloke.
Will there be a misandry law? Because God help any hen party if there is.
5
In reply to Timmd:
UKC sometimes disturbs me with the level of sexism shown by so many. "I once got called a name therefore no one should complain" seems to be pretty common, as is the rather pathetic "so now you can't compliment a woman" response, as if a respectful compliment and harassment are the same thing....
Firstly, no one is suggesting arresting people for an odd comment, however disrespectful it might be. Law changes like this are to tackle persistent and threatening behavior that has a serious effect on the victim.
Secondly, often with changes like this it's to do with how funding works. Harassment may have covered the behavior now being targeted (or one of several other laws), but being able to term it a hate crime means different processes, focus and funding can be put in to the problem. It's admin pretty much.
Thirdly, guys, "I get checked out sometimes" is not the same as the level of abuse that is directed towards women in many places on a daily basis. Actually talk to and LISTEN TO women about it instead of this pathetic metaphorical 'pat on the head, "there there it's not serious"' response.
UKC sometimes disturbs me with the level of sexism shown by so many. "I once got called a name therefore no one should complain" seems to be pretty common, as is the rather pathetic "so now you can't compliment a woman" response, as if a respectful compliment and harassment are the same thing....
Firstly, no one is suggesting arresting people for an odd comment, however disrespectful it might be. Law changes like this are to tackle persistent and threatening behavior that has a serious effect on the victim.
Secondly, often with changes like this it's to do with how funding works. Harassment may have covered the behavior now being targeted (or one of several other laws), but being able to term it a hate crime means different processes, focus and funding can be put in to the problem. It's admin pretty much.
Thirdly, guys, "I get checked out sometimes" is not the same as the level of abuse that is directed towards women in many places on a daily basis. Actually talk to and LISTEN TO women about it instead of this pathetic metaphorical 'pat on the head, "there there it's not serious"' response.
7
4
In reply to Scarab9:
UKC sometimes disturbs me with the level of stupid shown by so many, last week on the sweary route name thread someone claimed that a route name such as Kill Thatcher was a hate crime if it named a particular individual, the polar opposite of what a Hate Crime means.
Here, despite it being very clear there is no change to the Law, you somehow have construed that there has been.
When people are so completely wrong I have to wonder why they don't take a greater interest and try to understand things.
Separately, of course, it shows that if there is such a poor level of misunderstanding, it might be better to express things more clearly, and the coppers are to blame for that.
> Law changes like this
UKC sometimes disturbs me with the level of stupid shown by so many, last week on the sweary route name thread someone claimed that a route name such as Kill Thatcher was a hate crime if it named a particular individual, the polar opposite of what a Hate Crime means.
Here, despite it being very clear there is no change to the Law, you somehow have construed that there has been.
When people are so completely wrong I have to wonder why they don't take a greater interest and try to understand things.
Separately, of course, it shows that if there is such a poor level of misunderstanding, it might be better to express things more clearly, and the coppers are to blame for that.
2
In reply to timjones:
That's fair enough.
In part, I find the range of 'enough of this already' seemingly irritated responses quite interesting too, when something like this comes up. I'm all for clarity of law, but to my mind that doesn't quite account for the general grumpiness (from some).
The 'Equality - humph - bah humbug - what about this? ' stuff. I think it's worth exploring why, in a civilised way.
> You can certainly do that and I wouldn't disagree with you.
> My point is that the use of the word misogyny and the phrase hate crime are somewhat confusing and may be a poor choice of words if this is intended to encompass sexual harassment.
That's fair enough.
In part, I find the range of 'enough of this already' seemingly irritated responses quite interesting too, when something like this comes up. I'm all for clarity of law, but to my mind that doesn't quite account for the general grumpiness (from some).
The 'Equality - humph - bah humbug - what about this? ' stuff. I think it's worth exploring why, in a civilised way.
Post edited at 16:02
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend and as I said if misandry is a problem then it too should be covered by the same laws and processes. The links you provided are 3 for sexual harassment and 1 for domestic abuse - I believe the law already recognises those as crimes though I know they are underreported.
Sorry, I didn't mean to offend and as I said if misandry is a problem then it too should be covered by the same laws and processes. The links you provided are 3 for sexual harassment and 1 for domestic abuse - I believe the law already recognises those as crimes though I know they are underreported.
1
In reply to Bootrock:
The Equality Act covers employment and the provision of goods and services, where on earth are you getting your legal advice?
It can't be TV because Midsomer Murders doesn't make these kinds of mistakes.
> Comments are covered by the Equality Act 2010.
The Equality Act covers employment and the provision of goods and services, where on earth are you getting your legal advice?
It can't be TV because Midsomer Murders doesn't make these kinds of mistakes.
2
In reply to Alyson:
Harassment is unacceptable regardless of gender.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
Harassment is unacceptable regardless of gender.
Treat others as you wish to be treated.
3
In reply to Bootrock:
Yes, having been out drinking in Aviemore while dodging a rampaging and unstoppable Geordie hen night, you have a point. That is a world away from a sneaky peak at someone's cycling shorts.
> Will there be a misandry law? Because God help any hen party if there is.
Yes, having been out drinking in Aviemore while dodging a rampaging and unstoppable Geordie hen night, you have a point. That is a world away from a sneaky peak at someone's cycling shorts.
2
In reply to Bootrock:
Seriously?
We had this also a couple of weeks ago, it was Offwidth that time.
People obviously really struggle with this, when the cops make such bad decisions as the OP, it's not surprising that everyone gets such a confused view.
It's no good just posting links, you have to say why you think it supports what you're saying. In this case the link you provided has 2 examples, one employment, one services not Public Order.
It proves my point, not yours.
Seriously?
We had this also a couple of weeks ago, it was Offwidth that time.
People obviously really struggle with this, when the cops make such bad decisions as the OP, it's not surprising that everyone gets such a confused view.
It's no good just posting links, you have to say why you think it supports what you're saying. In this case the link you provided has 2 examples, one employment, one services not Public Order.
It proves my point, not yours.
In reply to winhill:
Haven't looked into it more than that garbled report, but sounds like they have expanded their definition of hate crime to include crimes motivated by a hatred of women.
It's a bit unclear because of the poor quality of the reporting.
I'm guessing the reporters are confusing non crime hate incidents - which may now cover incidents directed against women, with hate crime - which are offences which have always been offences but now include the extra "tag" of hate against women.
Doesn't seem too outlandish to me, if it helps focus on some of the lower level, but very common, incidents that occur for example on public transport.
If it encourages people to report crimes they would otherwise have ignored, and puts more support around victims, great.
Oh yeah, but screw the police as well (for some reason or other that you seem to feel is appropriate)
Haven't looked into it more than that garbled report, but sounds like they have expanded their definition of hate crime to include crimes motivated by a hatred of women.
It's a bit unclear because of the poor quality of the reporting.
I'm guessing the reporters are confusing non crime hate incidents - which may now cover incidents directed against women, with hate crime - which are offences which have always been offences but now include the extra "tag" of hate against women.
Doesn't seem too outlandish to me, if it helps focus on some of the lower level, but very common, incidents that occur for example on public transport.
If it encourages people to report crimes they would otherwise have ignored, and puts more support around victims, great.
Oh yeah, but screw the police as well (for some reason or other that you seem to feel is appropriate)
4
1
In reply to off-duty:
Well, you'd be wrong but nice try to blame the reporters - it's Police Policy driven through by the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Nottinghamshire Police describes hate
crime as “any incident, which may or may
not constitute a criminal offence, which is
perceived by the victim or any other person,
as being motivated by prejudice or hate”...
This may seem a bit complicated, but all
it really means is if you, or anybody else
thinks something has happened because of
prejudice then we will treat it as a hate crime.
http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/No...
The Police have decided that the Incident will be replaced with the word Crime.
It doesn't matter if nor is there any qualitative judgement to verify whether there is any Hate nor any Crime.
Just as they play fast and lose with the definition of Believe:
Will the police believe me if I say
I have experienced hate crime?
Yes. If you say that it is a hate crime, then it is,
and we will record it.
> I'm guessing the reporters are confusing non crime hate incidents
Well, you'd be wrong but nice try to blame the reporters - it's Police Policy driven through by the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Nottinghamshire Police describes hate
crime as “any incident, which may or may
not constitute a criminal offence, which is
perceived by the victim or any other person,
as being motivated by prejudice or hate”...
This may seem a bit complicated, but all
it really means is if you, or anybody else
thinks something has happened because of
prejudice then we will treat it as a hate crime.
http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/No...
The Police have decided that the Incident will be replaced with the word Crime.
It doesn't matter if nor is there any qualitative judgement to verify whether there is any Hate nor any Crime.
Just as they play fast and lose with the definition of Believe:
Will the police believe me if I say
I have experienced hate crime?
Yes. If you say that it is a hate crime, then it is,
and we will record it.
1
In reply to winhill:
That's certainly clearer than the report.
So "incident" has been replaced with "crime" - or certainly it was in July 2013 when that leaflet was published.
And I guess this report is actually about expanding the definition of hate to include that directed at women.
Fine. For the reasons I mentioned above.
I'm not sure whether you mean "qualitative" though.
A report of both "hate " and "crime " is currently entirely qualitative - it's a subjective judgement though. You might be complaining about a lack of objectivity, the fact the extent of any event is not quantified, or even that there might not be any evidence. A bit like many reports we deal with, until we investigate them.
Might have some agreement with you about "believe" though. I will record and thoroughly investigate your report, empathise with you and provide support, but I'm buggered if I'll believe you until I've examined all the evidence.
I thought that had been kicked into the long grass following the Winsor inspired cock-up about investigating sex offences. Still I guess that's the breaks when you appoint a rail regulator to provide governance to a detective.
That's certainly clearer than the report.
So "incident" has been replaced with "crime" - or certainly it was in July 2013 when that leaflet was published.
And I guess this report is actually about expanding the definition of hate to include that directed at women.
Fine. For the reasons I mentioned above.
I'm not sure whether you mean "qualitative" though.
A report of both "hate " and "crime " is currently entirely qualitative - it's a subjective judgement though. You might be complaining about a lack of objectivity, the fact the extent of any event is not quantified, or even that there might not be any evidence. A bit like many reports we deal with, until we investigate them.
Might have some agreement with you about "believe" though. I will record and thoroughly investigate your report, empathise with you and provide support, but I'm buggered if I'll believe you until I've examined all the evidence.
I thought that had been kicked into the long grass following the Winsor inspired cock-up about investigating sex offences. Still I guess that's the breaks when you appoint a rail regulator to provide governance to a detective.
Post edited at 20:13
2
In reply to winhill:
I'm slightly confused at how Nottinghamshire Police determine what the definition of the law is.
I'm slightly confused at how Nottinghamshire Police determine what the definition of the law is.
In reply to timjones:
I think creepy is defined as someone they are looking at not thinking they are hot.
> I sympathise with you about the comments and touching but "creepy men ogling" is somewhat subjective. If it was be recorded as a crime how do on earth can the police differentiate between this and a man that you find attractive looking at you as you pass on the street?
> I also suspect that none of these are actually misogynistic by definition.
I think creepy is defined as someone they are looking at not thinking they are hot.
In reply to Bootrock:
I'm going to avoid that, because I'd love Sue from accounts to pinch my arse.
> Harassment is unacceptable regardless of gender.
> Treat others as you wish to be treated.
I'm going to avoid that, because I'd love Sue from accounts to pinch my arse.
2
In reply to Alyson:
I'd like to report my wife for that, because I was out on my bike a while ago and a girl shouted "Fit arse!" at me as I rode past. This pleased me greatly. When I got home and proudly relayed the tale of this most welcome harassment, my missus well and truly pissed on my chips by replying "She said 'fat arse'". If that's not a hate crime, I don't know what is.
> Sorry, I didn't mean to offend and as I said if misandry is a problem then it too should be covered by the same laws and processes. The links you provided are 3 for sexual harassment and 1 for domestic abuse - I believe the law already recognises those as crimes though I know they are underreported.
I'd like to report my wife for that, because I was out on my bike a while ago and a girl shouted "Fit arse!" at me as I rode past. This pleased me greatly. When I got home and proudly relayed the tale of this most welcome harassment, my missus well and truly pissed on my chips by replying "She said 'fat arse'". If that's not a hate crime, I don't know what is.
2
In reply to Removed User:
He didn't say he wasn't.
> And I'd always thought you were a great big heaving bloke!
He didn't say he wasn't.
1
In reply to winhill:
No more comments about Theresa may or Boris Johnson allowed here then?
> crime as “any incident, which may or may
> not constitute a criminal offence, which is
> perceived by the victim or any other person,
> as being motivated by prejudice or hate”...
No more comments about Theresa may or Boris Johnson allowed here then?
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...