Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

the_pen_turner · 17-07-2016 12:29AM

Greentopia wrote: »

There's a way of avoiding that-don't be a dick to women. Do you think it's ok to comment on a woman's body like that?
And don't be disingenuous, it's more than just "speaking to women", it's making sexist, demeaning and disrespectful comments to them.
the problem is that when a women does these thing its laughed at and treated like a joke , when a man does it ,it becomes a hate crime
By the way I think this law should be applied equally to any gender who catcalls or makes lewd or suggestive and demeaning remarks.
I agree with this.

sorry for this being in red. my quote went haywire

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 12:32AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Oh grow up and use intelligent arguments instead of resorting to crappy white male victimhood statements by inadequate American basement dwellers who hate de feminazis because they can't get a woman. The vast majority of men here are white for god sake.

Because they can't get a woman? Way to make an adult point.

the_pen_turner · 17-07-2016 12:36AM

osarusan wrote: »

If I understand the hate crime law correctly, the prosecution would still have to prove that any act was motivated by hatred of or hostility toward women.

So I think the fear of going to prison for just asking a woman the time at a bus stop or even using a risque chat-up line is fairly groundless.

I do agree though that I can't see what it is this law would criminalise that isn't already considered illegal. "Threatening, abusive or insulting" language is already illegal in the UK, and it doesn't require the motivation behind the act to be proven either.

As an aside, if the report in the OP is correct, I'm surprised to hear that any county police force in the UK can simply amend/expand law like that. I did not think they had the authority to do so.

exactly. this law adds nothing except sexism and is designed to belittle men and any rights they have

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 12:36AM

Well it's not ok! its called objectivisation and it's insulting, belittling and demeaning! it's not a joke and it's not harmless, it makes women feel at the very least uncomfortable and at the most fearful and intimidated, especially as I said it usually comes from a guy who is with his mates. We should have the right to be in public without some slimey guy commenting uninvited on our appearance in such a nasty, disrespectful, classless way.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 12:36AM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

exactly. this law adds nothing except sexism and is designed to belittle men and any rights they have

Had.

Sweetemotion · 17-07-2016 12:37AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Oh grow up and use intelligent arguments instead of resorting to crappy white male victimhood statements by inadequate American basement dwellers who hate de feminazis because they can't get a woman. The vast majority of men here are white for god sake.

You advocate a sexist law discriminating against males to use uninvited verbal contact towards woman as a hate crime.

And want to make examples of a these men, in the court to stop this as reasonably?

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2016 12:37AM

Greentopia wrote: »

it's more than just "speaking to women", it's making sexist, demeaning and disrespectful comments to them.

The problem is that it isn't. It's "unwanted advances". Which means that a guy has to know (a) whether a woman likes him back before he makes a move, and (b) what specific line of conversation that individual woman would regard as disrespectful.

It's far too vague.

As I say, a law like this will only work if you create "designated chat up zones". Otherwise you're essentially saying that a guy can never make the first move without risking prosecution.

If "unwanted advances" was expanded to "unwanted persistence after being rebuked", I'd have absolutely zero problem with it and neither would most guys. The part that pisses lads off is the aspect of these laws which require guys, particularly teenage guys who are still figuring out how flirtatious interactions actually work, to develop psychic powers.

17-07-2016 12:38AM

Uninvited communication?

"Your honour, he isn't hot so I felt threatened when he talked to me at the bar. I only asked him to buy me a drink to change the conversation away from his advances and I only groped his balls and grinded him anyway because it was a hen party and that's my right.'

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:38AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The sexism is in the fact that some men feel they are entitled to make unwanted remarks to women about their bodies or looks in the first place.

Oh and women don't you have a link to a study peer reviewed saying women are the brunt of this kind of behaviour and not both genders ? Will we be adding W to LGBT ? Unfortunately I don't think they are a minority being half of society.

Lemming · 17-07-2016 12:39AM

osarusan wrote: »

If I understand the hate crime law correctly, the prosecution would still have to prove that any act was motivated by hatred of or hostility toward women.

So I think the fear of going to prison for just asking a woman the time at a bus stop or even using a risque chat-up line is fairly groundless.

I wonder what Mark Pearson's view of suggestions that the CPS act in a 'sensible' manner when faced with bat-**** time-defying accusations ....

The wording of this legislation is ripe for abuse. And given how keen that the UK CPS is to be seen to prosecute men for anything remotely sexually connected (no matter how inanely questionable the details) due to the political agenda of its head, I wouldn't be so confident if I lived in or visited sNottingham right now.

the_pen_turner · 17-07-2016 12:39AM

I don't agree with all of 47s points but I feel that he makes a good argument . if this law is implemented it is another step towards not being able to talk to a woman without fear of being accused of some nonsense crime.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:40AM

Greentopia wrote: »

There's a way of avoiding that-don't be a dick to women. Do you think it's ok to comment on a woman's body like that?
And don't be disingenuous, it's more than just "speaking to women", it's making sexist, demeaning and disrespectful comments to them.

By the way I think this law should be applied equally to any gender who catcalls or makes lewd or suggestive and demeaning remarks.

We a list ? Unfortunately offence is not universal on the same stuff. What's that father ted comment on bottoms ? I would wager these days that would trigger people like they were back in the trenches or in Vietnam.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:41AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Oh grow up and use intelligent arguments instead of resorting to crappy white male victimhood statements by inadequate American basement dwellers who hate de feminazis because they can't get a woman. The vast majority of men here are white for god sake.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 12:42AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Have you ever done or said something you wished you had'nt while drunk?

Yes, but never have I said anything to make another person feel objectified like they were just a life support system for a pair of tits and ass, no.

And you think because someone is drunk it's a mitigating factor in other crimes? how about rape? or assault? if not then why should it be in this case?

Too often drink is used as a reason to make light of bad behaviour in this country especially.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 12:43AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Well it's not ok! its called objectivisation and it's insulting, belittling and demeaning! it's not a joke and it's not harmless, it makes women feel at the very least uncomfortable and at the most fearful and intimidated, especially as I said it usually comes from a guy who is with his mates. We should have the right to be in public without some slimey guy commenting uninvited on our appearance in such a nasty, disrespectful, classless way.

So you advocate criminalizing people over respect, class and nastiness? Because you feel uncomfortable?

Do you understand the precedents being set here? Under this interpretation of law we should have hate crime legislation for just about anything anyone can say to anyone.

It is retarded.

I don't like what he/she said. Arrest them!

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:43AM

osarusan wrote: »

If I understand the hate crime law correctly, the prosecution would still have to prove that any act was motivated by hatred of or hostility toward women.

So I think the fear of going to prison for just asking a woman the time at a bus stop or even using a risque chat-up line is fairly groundless.

I do agree though that I can't see what it is this law would criminalise that isn't already considered illegal. "Threatening, abusive or insulting" language is already illegal in the UK, and it doesn't require the motivation behind the act to be proven either.

As an aside, if the report in the OP is correct, I'm surprised to hear that any county police force in the UK can simply amend/expand law like that. I did not think they had the authority to do so.

They don't no police force can legislate. If this person thinks they can I would consider that a bigger problem to be fair in relation to knowing the job.

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 12:44AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You advocate a sexist law discriminating against males to use uninvited verbal contact towards woman as a hate crime.

And want to make examples of a these men, in the court to stop this as reasonably?

I advocate a law that would make it unlawful for people of any gender (as I've already stated) to make insulting, disrespectful and demeaning remarks like cat calling a crime, yes.

Sweetemotion · 17-07-2016 12:46AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Yes, but never have I said anything to make another person feel objectified like they were just a life support system for a pair of tits and ass, no.

And you think because someone is drunk it's a mitigating factor in other crimes? how about rape? or assault? if not then why should it be in this case?

Too often drink is used as a reason to make light of bad behaviour in this country especially.

There are already laws for rape and assault.

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2016 12:46AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Yes, but never have I said anything to make another person feel objectified like they were just a life support system for a pair of tits and ass, no.

Greentopia, do you at least accept that there's a disconnect between what you would like to see criminalised, and the actual wording of what's been done here?

Because I actually agree with your points, but you don't seem to understand that this new law goes much further than that "uninvited communication" essentially means that a man can never make the first move, ever, unless he's already 100% sure that the woman already likes him in return. That doesn't just cover the kind of abuse you're talking about, "uninvited communication" literally means that if the guy is the first one to say "hey, how's it going" and it turns out she's not interested, he is technically guilty of a crime.

Can we agree that this is f*cked up?

The intention of this law is not the problem, it's the wording.

Lemming · 17-07-2016 12:46AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Yes, but never have I said anything to make another person feel objectified like they were just a life support system for a pair of tits and ass, no.

But if you were ever drunk, how can you stand over your insistence that you never said such a thing? Your judgement and recollection are impaired in the eyes of the law. Do you see where this point is going? What you think you may have said and what you may have said can be two very different things; doubly so after a night out and hazy recollections because you were impaired by booze. A previous poster said that if the law was more specific on behaviour I don't think most guys would have a problem, but it's so open to interpretation and given that the current operatus-modi of the CPS is to prosecute first, ask questions later if a woman brings any sort of sexually-related complaint regardless of any sort of merit to the complaint, this legislation is nothing more than abuse waiting to happen.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:46AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Well it's not ok! its called objectivisation and it's insulting, belittling and demeaning! it's not a joke and it's not harmless, it makes women feel at the very least uncomfortable and at the most fearful and intimidated, especially as I said it usually comes from a guy who is with his mates. We should have the right to be in public without some slimey guy commenting uninvited on our appearance in such a nasty, disrespectful, classless way.

Odd my other half is not part of this hive mind and is Loling at this nonsense. You a list of stuff so we can check what's objectification, insulting, and belittling.

the_pen_turner · 17-07-2016 12:46AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Well it's not ok! its called objectivisation and it's insulting, belittling and demeaning! it's not a joke and it's not harmless, it makes women feel at the very least uncomfortable and at the most fearful and intimidated, especially as I said it usually comes from a guy who is with his mates. We should have the right to be in public without some slimey guy commenting uninvited on our appearance in such a nasty, disrespectful, classless way.

you are correct but are failing to see that you only see half the argument. you see it from a female side ( im assuming) this also happens to men as well

the problem is that the law only portrays the women's side and forgets the other side

you cannot possible think that this law is not sexist.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:49AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Yes, but never have I said anything to make another person feel objectified like they were just a life support system for a pair of tits and ass, no.

And you think because someone is drunk it's a mitigating factor in other crimes? how about rape? or assault? if not then why should it be in this case?

Too often drink is used as a reason to make light of bad behaviour in this country especially.

How would you know ?

Renegade Mechanic · 17-07-2016 12:50AM

Greentopia wrote: »

Oh grow up and use intelligent arguments instead of resorting to crappy white male victimhood statements by inadequate American basement dwellers who hate de feminazis because they can't get a woman. The vast majority of men here are white for god sake.

I actually spilled cider laughing. Holy hell, cheers for that

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 12:50AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

They don't no police force can legislate. If this person thinks they can I would consider that a bigger problem to be fair in relation to knowing the job.

This is active law. She has expanded the catchment of existing legislation ( hate crime) to include her own version of hate. It is operational. Right now in nightclubs in Nottingham this law is being broken repeatedly, by thousands of men. That's how wide ranging it is. Every man is guilty unless he's sitting in the corner crying.

This law wasn't created but it is legally enforceable. She has just bent legislation.

osarusan · 17-07-2016 12:51AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because I actually agree with your points, but you don't seem to understand that this new law goes much further than that "uninvited communication" essentially means that a man can never make the first move, ever, unless he's already 100% sure that the woman already likes him in return. That doesn't just cover the kind of abuse you're talking about, "uninvited communication" literally means that if the guy is the first one to say "hey, how's it going" and it turns out she's not interested, he is technically guilty of a crime.

Can we agree that this is f*cked up?

Again, for him to be technically guilty of a crime, is it not the case that it would have to be proven in court that whatever happened, happened because of the man's attitude towards women?

Motivation for the act would have to be proven.

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 12:52AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The problem is that it isn't. It's "unwanted advances". Which means that a guy has to know (a) whether a woman likes him back before he makes a move, and (b) what specific line of conversation that individual woman would regard as disrespectful.

It's far too vague.

As I say, a law like this will only work if you create "designated chat up zones". Otherwise you're essentially saying that a guy can never make the first move without risking prosecution.

If "unwanted advances" was expanded to "unwanted persistence after being rebuked", I'd have absolutely zero problem with it and neither would most guys. The part that pisses lads off is the aspect of these laws which require guys, particularly teenage guys who are still figuring out how flirtatious interactions actually work, to develop psychic powers.

Obviously as others have said here it would be about context and motive. A guy saying hello to a woman and telling them in a genuine non creepy way they have a nice smile is not the same thing as going up to a woman and saying "nice tits love".

I agree to an extent with your last paragraph, but if it's so hard for teenage guys to understand that they shouldn't make lewd and bawdy remarks to women that objectifies them then perhaps mandatory classes are in order in schools on how to treat girls and women with dignity and respect! you'd be ok with that? because I can hear the shouts now from some men that that would be treating all men as potential abusers! can't win.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:52AM

FortySeven wrote: »

This is active law. She has expanded the catchment of existing legislation ( hate crime) to include her own version of hate. It is operational. Right now in nightclubs in Nottingham this law is being broken repeatedly, by thousands of men. That's how wide ranging it is. Every man is guilty unless he's sitting in the corner crying.

This law wasn't created but it is legally enforceable. She has just bent legislation.

That's her in interpretation, I fully expect this to be fully retraced and changed when someone with sense gets wind of this.

Lemming · 17-07-2016 12:53AM

osarusan wrote: »

Again, for him to be technically guilty of a crime, is it not the case that it would have to be proven in court that whatever happened, happened because of the man's attitude towards women?

Motivation for the act would have to be proven.

And again, you are expectiong the CPS to behave in a dispassionate, objective manner. I have two words for you: "Mark Pearson". Google them. Seriously. Then come back here and tell us if you woudl be happy enduring a year and a half of hell for no reason. And for your accusser - to have been shown to have acted out of malice and deceit - be allowed to skip off scot-free having wasted police & court time in an attempt to pervert the course of justice on a capricious whim. Because that's what this legislation makes possible because it is so, so, oh-so-very vague.

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2016 12:56AM

osarusan wrote: »

Again, for him to be technically guilty of a crime, is it not the case that it would have to be proven in court that whatever happened, happened because of the man's attitude towards women?

Motivation for the act would have to be proven.

That's true, but as far as I'm concerned whether it can be proven in court or not isn't the point. It's an appalling message to send to young people, that being clumsy in your newly-developing romantic overtures is no longer just a cause for embarrassment but potentially an actual criminal offence. Particularly when we live in a society in which a large proportion of young women still want to be approached rather than to do the approaching.

I can't tell you how many times as a young fella I chatted up the wrong person, hideously misconstruing non-flirting for flirting. It happens, you get laughed at, and then you laugh at yourself and it's all good.

Defining "uninvited communication" as a crime is unimaginably Orwellian.

Catcalling is now a 'hate crime' - UK Police Force

Comments