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

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 12:57AM

That's a good one taking pictures without consent. Absolute tripe. Fully expect the CPS to be all over that. So CCTV is out then in clubs.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 12:57AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

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

I hope so bit in the current climate? Women's aid is a powerful lobby.

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2016 12:57AM

Greentopia wrote: »

I don't live in Nottingham so...no I can't. And I have no problem with any man speaking to me in a respectful way.

Again, the problem is the wording, specifically the phrase "uninvited communication". Not "persistent uninvited communication", or "malicious uninvited communication", just "uninvited communication". Meaning that saying "hello" first can now be considered a crime if you happen to chat up somebody who isn't interested, but you mistook their smile to the guy next to you as being aimed at you.

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 01:01AM

FortySeven wrote: »

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

From any of my unfortunate but thankfully few encounters with these inadequates online I can't imagine any of them could hold down a normal relationship with any self respecting woman, no, as they all seem to have various deep seated emotional or psychological issues that make them blame woman for their problems.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:03AM

Greentopia wrote: »

From any of my unfortunate but thankfully few encounters with these inadequates online I can't imagine any of them could hold down a normal relationship with any self respecting woman, no, as they all seem to have various deep seated emotional or psychological issues that make them blame woman for their problems.

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

Sweetemotion · 17-07-2016 01:03AM

Greentopia wrote: »

From any of my unfortunate but thankfully few encounters with these inadequates online I can't imagine any of them could hold down a normal relationship with any self respecting woman, no, as they all seem to have various deep seated emotional or psychological issues that make them blame woman for their problems.

Men in general?

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:04AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Men in general?

Don't bite it's terrible. I remember when it was subtle.

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 01:05AM

FortySeven wrote: »

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!

It's not just feeling uncomfortable. I wrote about how it made me felt, not repeating myself.

And it's not about not being able to say anything-motive, context and intent is all important.

Had enough, just repeating myself now so good luck.

Sweetemotion · 17-07-2016 01:08AM

Greentopia wrote: »

It's not just feeling uncomfortable. I wrote about how it made me felt, not repeating myself.

And it's not about not being able to say anything-motive, context and intent is all important.

Had enough, just repeating myself now so good luck.

Was it uncomfortable when the men were ugly but satisfying when the men when the men were handsome?

Greentopia · 17-07-2016 01:09AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

You seem intelligent and make a well reasoned case without resorting to belittling and immature comments so I'll reply to you, but tomorrow if I may as I'm off to bed now. Had a late one last night and need to get some shut eye. After that I have nothing further to add really.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:10AM

Greentopia wrote: »

You seem intelligent and make a well reasoned case without resorting to belittling and immature comments so I'll reply to you, but tomorrow if I may as I'm off to bed now. Had a late one last night and need to get some shut eye. After that I have nothing further to add really.

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

osarusan · 17-07-2016 01:11AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's true, but as far as I'm concerned whether it can be proven in court or not isn't the point.

If you are talking about something being a crime or not, then that really is the point.

17-07-2016 01:12AM

Greentopia wrote: »

From any of my unfortunate but thankfully few encounters with these inadequates online I can't imagine any of them could hold down a normal relationship with any self respecting woman, no, as they all seem to have various deep seated emotional or psychological issues that make them blame woman for their problems.

"People with emotional or psychological issues are inadequate. I shouldn't have to deal with them".

You're clearly oblivious to how hateful you sound.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:12AM

osarusan wrote: »

If you are talking about something being a crime or not, then that really is the point.

The wording on the police site says they don't know if it's a criminal act so taking a guilty stance till proven otherwise.

hatrickpatrick · 17-07-2016 01:14AM

osarusan wrote: »

If you are talking about something being a crime or not, then that really is the point.

It really isn't. It's the law itself, and the wording that's used, which sets a dangerous societal precedent.

If a law was passed stating that it would be illegal to say the Our Father before going to bed, would you regard that as ok simply because it would be almost impossible to prove in court? I wouldn't, because the principle of criminalising private religious practise would be appalling. This is about principle and precedent. Criminalising "uninvited communication" means barring men from making the first move in chat-up situations or from initiating a potential chat-up. Do you disagree?

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:16AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It really isn't. It's the law itself, and the wording that's used, which sets a dangerous societal precedent.

If a law was passed stating that it would be illegal to say the Our Father before going to bed, would you regard that as ok simply because it would be almost impossible to prove in court? I wouldn't, because the principle of criminalising private religious practise would be appalling. This is about principle and precedent. Criminalising "uninvited communication" means barring men from making the first move in chat-up situations or from initiating a potential chat-up. Do you disagree?

Just like our blasphemy law its ridiculous.

osarusan · 17-07-2016 01:19AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It really isn't. It's the law itself, and the wording that's used, which sets a dangerous societal precedent.

If a law was passed stating that it would be illegal to say the Our Father before going to bed, would you regard that as ok simply because it would be almost impossible to prove in court? I wouldn't, because the principle of criminalising private religious practise would be appalling. This is about principle and precedent. Criminalising "uninvited communication" means barring men from making the first move in chat-up situations or from initiating a potential chat-up. Do you disagree?

The example you gave about saying the 'our father' is not appropriate because to prove that it was said would be proving an act, whereas with this law, because it is a hate law, the motivation behind the act has to be proven. You have already agreed that this is true.

There is no blanket criminalisation of uninvited communication, but only of uninvited communication where it can be proven that that communication was motivated by a hatred of or hostility towards women.

So I do not think there is anything to fear about saying 'hello' to a woman in a pub who turns out not to be interested in you, unless you genuinely believe that it will found in a court of law that your speech act was motivated by a negative attitude towards women.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 01:20AM

osarusan wrote: »

If you are talking about something being a crime or not, then that really is the point.

Is it? Before being acquitted you can still be dragged away from your night out. Held in custody, questioned, fingerprinted, DNA taken, photographed and then suffer the indignity of accusation for months before your day in court. Add in legal costs.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 01:25AM

osarusan wrote: »

The example you gave about saying the 'our father' is not appropriate because to prove that it was said would be proving an act, whereas with this law, because it is a hate law, the motivation behind the act has to be proven. You have already agreed that this is true.

There is no blanket criminalisation of uninvited communication, but only of uninvited communication where it can be proven that that communication was motivated by a hatred of or hostility towards women.

So I do not think there is anything to fear about saying 'hello' to a woman in a pub who turns out not to be interested in you, unless you genuinely believe that it will found in a court of law that your speech act was motivated by a negative attitude towards women.

How do you defend a hatred for women?

Sapphire · 17-07-2016 01:27AM

I doubt women will be given the power to actually jail someone on her whims. More than likely it will be a case of her having to report it to her local police, they investigate and if the man only actually asked her "what time is last orders in this pub" or "what time is the next 46a" then the cops would find something better to investigate.

Sweetemotion · 17-07-2016 01:31AM

Sapphire wrote: »

I doubt women will be given the power to actually jail someone on her whims. More than likely it will be a case of her having to report it to her local police, they investigate and if the man only actually asked her "what time is last orders in this pub" or "what time is the next 46a" then the cops would find something better to investigate.

Men are being jailed all the time on women's whims.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:43AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Men are being jailed all the time on women's whims.

I'm sure people have heard personally of cases where a chap was accused of rape because the girl/woman in question was assumed to admit it to the parents. Life wreaking even if it was not true. And belittles the actual people affected by rape. Same in colleges not wanting to admit making a mistake and calling out abuse or harassment the next day. Very difficult the other way around. We need to stop this attitude that women are immediately the victims some are spreading it's toxic.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 01:52AM

Genuine question to both sides of this kind of debate.

When did feminism and society at large stop promoting strong interdependent women just as capable as the opposite sex. To now women automatically the victim in the situation and men as sexual predators and will rape if given the chance. To me it's started after leaving college many many moons ago and especially with the rise of social media and equality and diversity being a role.

Outlaw Pete · 17-07-2016 01:56AM

31st of May 1998.

That was the day Geri left the Spice Girls.

Sapphire · 17-07-2016 02:18AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Genuine question to both sides of this kind of debate.

When did feminism and society at large stop promoting strong interdependent women just as capable as the opposite sex. To now women automatically the victim in the situation and men as sexual predators and will rape if given the chance. To me it's started after leaving college many many moons ago and especially with the rise of social media and equality and diversity being a role.

I believe in equality. I believe that the presumption that a victim of a sexual assault is on the surface truthful, is hugely important, and I believe that by promoting that, even though it is predominately female victims at the moment, that acceptance is what will eventually enable men to speak out about sexual assaults they have experienced - because its hugely taboo still.

I disagree that colleges should investigate campus rapes - let the professionals in to investigate - the police-, and keep all parties anonymous until after the trial and conviction. I believe common sense should prevail in investigations. College officials have no business investigating crime.

Rape is a crime that we are only now seeing awareness and prosecution thereof. We are seeing a shift away from the view that its done by strangers in dark alleyways or that a short skirt caused it. This is good progress. Because it will continue on to tear down the myths of male rape and sexual assault too. Or the myths associated with child abuse.

FWIW, I feel that a woman groping a man without his consent is undoubtedly sexual assault, and that she should be subject to the same laws. I would approve of same sentences for females who groom underage males as men would get for the same crime committed on an underage female.

Some feminists just want... equality. Not the 'some are more equal than others' type. Just equal.

darkpagandeath · 17-07-2016 02:22AM

Sapphire wrote: »

I believe in equality. I believe that the presumption that a victim of a sexual assault is on the surface truthful, is hugely important, and I believe that by promoting that, even though it is predominately female victims at the moment, that acceptance is what will eventually enable men to speak out about sexual assaults they have experienced - because its hugely taboo still.

I disagree that colleges should investigate campus rapes - let the professionals in to investigate - the police-, and keep all parties anonymous until after the trial and conviction. I believe common sense should prevail in investigations. College officials have no business investigating crime.

Rape is a crime that we are only now seeing awareness and prosecution thereof. We are seeing a shift away from the view that its done by strangers in dark alleyways or that a short skirt caused it. This is good progress. Because it will continue on to tear down the myths of male rape and sexual assault too. Or the myths associated with child abuse.

FWIW, I feel that a woman groping a man without his consent is undoubtedly sexual assault, and that she should be subject to the same laws. I would approve of same sentences for females who groom underage males as men would get for the same crime committed on an underage female.

Some feminists just want... equality. Not the 'some are more equal than others' type. Just equal.

And what you posted is complete sense no one would have any issue with that hats off.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 02:38AM

Sapphire wrote: »

I believe in equality. I believe that the presumption that a victim of a sexual assault is on the surface truthful, is hugely important, and I believe that by promoting that, even though it is predominately female victims at the moment, that acceptance is what will eventually enable men to speak out about sexual assaults they have experienced - because its hugely taboo still.

I disagree that colleges should investigate campus rapes - let the professionals in to investigate - the police-, and keep all parties anonymous until after the trial and conviction. I believe common sense should prevail in investigations. College officials have no business investigating crime.

Rape is a crime that we are only now seeing awareness and prosecution thereof. We are seeing a shift away from the view that its done by strangers in dark alleyways or that a short skirt caused it. This is good progress. Because it will continue on to tear down the myths of male rape and sexual assault too. Or the myths associated with child abuse.

FWIW, I feel that a woman groping a man without his consent is undoubtedly sexual assault, and that she should be subject to the same laws. I would approve of same sentences for females who groom underage males as men would get for the same crime committed on an underage female.

Some feminists just want... equality. Not the 'some are more equal than others' type. Just equal.

The voice of reason unfortunately is not the loudest. Wholeheartedly agree with your post.

Any chance you could reign in the louder of your brethren, when men confront them they tell us that we don't get to tell them what feminism should be. Maybe they need to hear it from you?

cannex · 17-07-2016 02:48AM

What is all this crap about criminalising men for "talking" to women.

It is not talking.
Get a grip.

The last time i was cat called I was alone, at night in the city centre. A man walked passed me and and said some really nasty, degrading **** and somehow I was supposed to be impressed????????
Is this what you mean by talking to women??
Well when I told him to leave me alone, he followed me and shouted more ABUSE at me. I was scared and on my own. I had to run away.
What made him angry? I told him to piss off, yip, that was it.
He was actually angry at me because I actually voiced the fact that his SEXUAL HARRASSMENT was unacceptable.

THIS is what we are talking about.

Once again, get a ****ing grip lads.

With every single time I have had some creepy, sexual **** said to me by a total stranger I told them to go **** themselves.

Should I just smile and bat my eyelids instead yes?

It is not about men talking to women in a bar, saying hello, chatting someone up.
When was the last time you talked, chatted up a women by shouting at her in street?

I cant post links so google 10 hours of walking in NYC as a woman.

Men have no bloody idea how prevalent it is.

Outlaw Pete · 17-07-2016 02:49AM

Sapphire wrote: »

FWIW, I feel that a woman groping a man without his consent is undoubtedly sexual assault, and that she should be subject to the same laws.

Well, they are subject to the same laws but the sentencing is rarely on par, that's the problem. I don't think anyone would mind these laws being brought in if there was the remote chance that when broken the punishment for doing so would the same no matter the gender, but it rarely if ever is.

For example I couldn't see a woman getting the same sentence as this man received for doing similar. Especially considering cases such as these for example (1, 2, 3) seen the woman involved effectively all walk free.

I applaud you saying what you have, that you feel the consequences of breaking the law should be the same for both sexes, as it's rare enough. Often there are no calls for anything like it and in fact quite the contrary, as over the years many have even called for women's prisons to be closed. Here is the most recent example of that.

cannex · 17-07-2016 02:53AM

BTW its applies to women shouting sexual harassment to men too.

But ye love it right, sure we're only admiring yer tight arses and those lovely tight pants that show you bulging manlihood.
I bet it gives you an ego boost that a woman in the street is admiring your arse, maybe she wants your number, you never know it could be love.

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

Comments