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

steddyeddy · 17-07-2016 11:26AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

Ah Conor you're better than that sexist dribble.

Letree · 17-07-2016 11:34AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

I hope you are joking if not we have a very long way to go with some people to bring them into the current century.

Renegade Mechanic · 17-07-2016 11:41AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

But what if it's Katie Taylor?

FishOnABike · 17-07-2016 11:46AM

Deleted User wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

I can't tell whether you're being ironic here or whether you are expressing genuinely held beliefs.

As someone who has been on the receiving end of domestic violence from an ex-wife I can tell you the societal and legal attitute to female on male violence has done far deeper and longer lasting harm to me than the bruises, cuts and pulled out hair which heal and grow back reltively quickly

17-07-2016 12:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And rightly so.

A man hitting a woman shouldn't just be hit back, he should have a few fingers bent back until they audibly break.

A woman hitting a man? Well boo hoo...blub blub... Man up and take it or put up a hand to block it.

If you hit a guy for defending himself against a woman, then it's you and the woman that are c unts. Get with the times and stop being a sexist idiot.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 01:03PM

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

But what if it's Katie Taylor?

Kick her in the nuts.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2016 01:16PM

I think Conor highlighted the problem with a law against misogny. It's like having a law against harrasment of Asians. There's misandry and misogny directed at men and women.

Catcalling and harrasment have no room in today's society and I don't think we can downplay them. The problem is this law, like some of the posters here downplay misandry and violence against men by making it about one gender only. It's the populist face of sexism. Go to the Gentlemen's Club forum and you'll read about multiple instants of men being groped and sexually harrased. A law or directive like this cat calling affair distingiushes and prioritises offences between genders and adds to the downplaying of misandry.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2016 01:18PM

cannex wrote: »

Yay!

Lets see, approx 2 women on this whole thread. I see that you view this new addition to the hate crimes law as unfair but the reality is that your version of feeling persecuted for talking to a woman is not the same as mysogyny.

Unfortuately yours and every other guys reaction is so black and white its disturbing.

What has the genders of the posters got to do with anything?

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 01:22PM

I'd say the lack of the usual feminist apologists speaks volumes. They know to pick their battles .

Outlaw Pete · 17-07-2016 02:05PM

Hate crime here by a woman on men I guess.

Funniest part is where the two guys at 1m 31s (one of them Irish) turn around and look at the wall when she first confronts them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P24bL18mR8M

Aurum · 17-07-2016 03:34PM

FortySeven wrote: »

I'd say the lack of the usual feminist apologists speaks volumes. They know to pick their battles .

I think that most posters find the discussions on feminist related topics on AH to be repetitive and fairly futile. The majority of posters don't have strong feelings one way or another, and posters who are strongly anti-feminist will never be convinced.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread but my initial thoughts after reading the press release are; the law hasn't changed, people won't be prosecuted solely on these grounds. This is a change in policing regulations for one city, not wholesale legislative expansion or reform. Hate crime really only becomes an issue when it is a motivating factor in an existing proven criminal act i.e. a more severe sentence for physically attacking someone because of their race, rather than as part of a mugging. This new provision is primarily focused on gathering data about the location and manner in which women are being harassed in Nottingham. There will be victim support and the force will have a better idea of when and where in the city more police presence might be required. It can be useful in a number of ways, for both women and the general public, I don't see a problem with it.

ceadaoin. · 17-07-2016 03:35PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Seen as men very rarely report violence by women how do yo know ? If my partner beat me I would not feel very forthcoming to goto the Garda/

Actually, studies have shown that men who experience domestic violence are more likely to call the police and more likely to press charges than women

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.468.9330&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(Page 14)

Take Your Pants Off · 17-07-2016 03:39PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

What a pile of PC sh1te.

Political correctness?
Can someone explain to me whats this word actually means

D0NNELLY · 17-07-2016 03:41PM

Hate crime? Love crime surely

Calahonda52 · 17-07-2016 03:52PM

Greentopia wrote: »

I don't want that type of "admiration" shouted at me in the street by some knuckle dragging neanderthal and I don't know any woman who would. There are respectful ways of telling a woman she is attractive and cat calling is not one of them.

The problem is, respectful or not, if it is deemed "unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement" then its a hate crime so we need a list of
pre approved:
respectful ways of telling a woman she is attractive
that
pass the
unwanted or uninvited verbal contact or engagement test.

Good luck with that list

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 03:59PM

Aurum wrote: »

I think that most posters find the discussions on feminist related topics on AH to be repetitive and fairly futile. The majority of posters don't have strong feelings one way or another, and posters who are strongly anti-feminist will never be convinced.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread but my initial thoughts after reading the press release are; the law hasn't changed, people won't be prosecuted solely on these grounds. This is a change in policing regulations for one city, not wholesale legislative expansion or reform. Hate crime really only becomes an issue when it is a motivating factor in an existing proven criminal act i.e. a more severe sentence for physically attacking someone because of their race, rather than as part of a mugging. This new provision is primarily focused on gathering data about the location and manner in which women are being harassed in Nottingham. There will be victim support and the force will have a better idea of when and where in the city more police presence might be required. It can be useful in a number of ways, for both women and the general public, I don't see a problem with it.

Ok. So when women's aid throw their considerable resources behind this in a use it or lose it push and recorded hatecrimes in Nottingham multiply exponentially. What do you think happens?

17-07-2016 04:00PM

Aurum wrote: »

I think that most posters find the discussions on feminist related topics on AH to be repetitive and fairly futile. The majority of posters don't have strong feelings one way or another, and posters who are strongly anti-feminist will never be convinced.

Anyway, I haven't read the entire thread but my initial thoughts after reading the press release are; the law hasn't changed, people won't be prosecuted solely on these grounds. This is a change in policing regulations for one city, not wholesale legislative expansion or reform. Hate crime really only becomes an issue when it is a motivating factor in an existing proven criminal act i.e. a more severe sentence for physically attacking someone because of their race, rather than as part of a mugging. This new provision is primarily focused on gathering data about the location and manner in which women are being harassed in Nottingham. There will be victim support and the force will have a better idea of when and where in the city more police presence might be required. It can be useful in a number of ways, for both women and the general public, I don't see a problem with it.

Shush with your common sense and perspective!

There's no place for that kind of talk on these threads donchakno

FishOnABike · 17-07-2016 04:14PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Actually, studies have shown that men who experience domestic violence are more likely to call the police and more likely to press charges than women
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/downloadable?doi=10.1.1.468.9330&rep=rep1&type=pdf

(Page 14)

Actually an Irish study http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Gda%20Maeve%20Aldridge.pdf shows that men who experience domestic violence are far less likely to report it than women.

Numerous studies have shown that women have the same propensity for instigating domestic violence as men. It is almost 50/50 with women slightly more frequently being the instigator. Women are also more likely to use a weapon. Yet men are far less likely to report suffering domestic violence.

This should tell us there is something wrong with adopting a gendered approach to something which is not based on gender.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2016 04:18PM

FortySeven wrote: »

Ok. So when women's aid throw their considerable resources behind this in a use it or lose it push and recorded hatecrimes in Nottingham multiply exponentially. What do you think happens?

Indeed. This is catering to a soecial interests group. Like I said it's the same as legislating for racism against one race.

dr.fuzzenstein · 17-07-2016 04:33PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

Actually an Irish study http://www.amen.ie/theses/Dis%20Gda%20Maeve%20Aldridge.pdf shows that men who experience domestic violence are far less likely to report it than women.

Numerous studies have shown that women have the same propensity for instigating domestic violence as men. It is almost 50/50 with women slightly more frequently being the instigator. Women are also more likely to use a weapon. Yet men are far less likely to report suffering domestic violence.

This should tell us there is something wrong with adopting a gendered approach to something which is not based on gender.

Men don't report it because they will be laughed out of the Garda station.
My friend was scratched across the face by his partner and was told "would you ever cop on to yourself" at the Garda station. He later asked a Gard what would happen if she had made the same complaint, "we would have come an arrested you".
That's how it goes in this country.

Aurum · 17-07-2016 04:39PM

FortySeven wrote: »

Ok. So when women's aid throw their considerable resources behind this in a use it or lose it push and recorded hatecrimes in Nottingham multiply exponentially. What do you think happens?

If it is well publicized (partly using WA's resources) more women will report incidents that they would otherwise just live with, the police force will get a much better overview of how many victims there are, how frequently these incidents occur and where they occur, and importantly get a broader view of the types and severity of incidents that occur, i.e. is most of it shouting and verbal abuse, are physical threats and intimidation involved, is public transport a particular problem or is it about the same as the rest of the city, what are the ages of the victims (e.g. are teenage girls being disproportionately affected). If there was a particularly nasty incident, which was, however, not criminal, the victim might be more likely to file a report and then benefit from their support service.

The WA, despite their apparently considerable resources, can't fabricate victims of harassment, the only way in which they could exert pressure (and your suggestion about this is, of course, total supposition) would be to require the police force to properly carry out the new programme to which it has publicly committed.

17-07-2016 04:44PM

selastich2 wrote: »

TRIGGER WARNING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvRYEo8EFkc

Wasn't there another viral video of woman hit man, croed doesn;t react. man hits woman, everyone goes spare?

On a mental level, I totally agree with you that nobody has the right to beat another person. It's utterly hypocritical that our society tends to deem a female-on-male slap in the face relatively acceptable.

Nevertheless, that video you posted get's super-uncomfortable at 1:55, when the male on female violence starts.

You cannot ignore (and feminists should not ignore) the reality that men tend to be stronger, and hit harder, than women. Women are the weaker sex, in general. I couldn't even watch the whole of the video, so extreme was the difference between the violence perpetrated by women and that perpetrated by men. in every case (until I stopped the video), the women were knocked to the ground, whereas men were only ever 'slapped'.

Violence is never okay, but I think we have to be pragmatic, and say that male violence against women usually deserves special stigma.

I wouldn't get into a ring with Katie Taylor, mind you, but on the same basis, she wouldn't have a chance against a fairly average male professional.

There's quite a good illustration of this in tennis.

Jannick Noah once played a tennis match against Justine Hennan, whilst he wore a dress. He mostly played trick shots and slices, according to reports, and still he beat her (...in the sporting sense, you understand).

The point being, that male on female violence deserves its stigmatic status in our society. It's not unlike a grown 'tank' of a man beating up a slinky teenager. It's almost nauseating to see it.

steddyeddy · 17-07-2016 04:44PM

Aurum wrote: »

If it is well publicized (partly using WA's resources) more women will report incidents that they would otherwise just live with, the police force will get a much better overview of how many victims there are, how frequently these incidents occur and where they occur, and importantly get a broader view of the types and severity of incidents that occur, i.e. is most of it shouting and verbal abuse, are physical threats and intimidation involved, is public transport a particular problem or is it about the same as the rest of the city, what are the ages of the victims (e.g. are teenage girls being disproportionately affected). If there was a particularly nasty incident, which was, however, not criminal, the victim might be more likely to file a report and then benefit from their support service.

The WA, despite their apparently considerable resources, can't fabricate victims of harassment, the only way in which they could exert pressure (and your suggestion about this is, of course, total supposition) would be to require the police force to properly carry out the new programme to which it has publicly committed.

Do you not think harrassment against all genders should be a hate crime? The problem with special interest groups is that they push one group's interest sometimes at the expense of another groups.

FishOnABike · 17-07-2016 05:02PM

Erin Pizzey - founder of the first women's refuge. Subsequently boycotted, isolated and threatened by militant feminists for publishing her research which showed that most of the women were equally as violent or more violent than their husbands. Ref. Prone To Violence by Erin Pizzey and Jeff Shapiro https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0600205517?vs=1

Only 4% to 5% of domestic violence is the stereotypical wife-beating husband. Yet this is where most of the resources are focused and funded. The problem will never be solved when 95% of it is largely unacknowledged and ignored.

Aurum · 17-07-2016 05:08PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you not think harrassment against all genders should be a hate crime? The problem with special interest groups is that they push one group's interest sometimes at the expense of another groups.

As I said before, hate crime is relevant when there is a criminal act combined with a specific form of motivation. It was committed because the person was of a specific race, disabled etc. The reason, I would imagine, that gender is not included in official hate crime legislation in the UK is because it would be very difficult to prove that a crime was carried out purely because the victim was a woman. However, women are disproportionately, and more severely affected, by sexual harassment, so it was incorporated into the hate crime provision in Nottingham as a way of highlighting this and gathering more data, and perhaps to act as a deterrent. I'll mention again, no one will be prosecuted as a result of this change.

The reason why hate crime provisions would almost never work for men is because it would be incredibly rare for a man to be criminally injured by a woman purely because of the man's gender (rather than during an argument etc.) Certainly not frequently enough to require specific legal protection.

RDM_83 again · 17-07-2016 05:13PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The problem with special interest groups is that they push one group's interest sometimes at the expense of another groups.

What I would be curious is if they actually do push this whats it going to look like? I am not sure of the demographics of Nottingham but if its like the British midlands city a female of friend of mine went to uni in its not going to be White British men arrested if they focus on street harassment. Additionally as far as I remember they already a program there to get police involved in harrasment without the "hate crime" thing/
What would be the liberal response when its a ton of British asians being charged with this crime? the optics won't look good

Aurum · 17-07-2016 05:19PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

What I would be curious is if they actually do push this whats it going to look like? I am not sure of the demographics of Nottingham but if its like the British midlands city a female of friend of mine went to uni in its not going to be White British men arrested if they focus on street harassment. Additionally as far as I remember they already a program there to get police involved in harrasment without the "hate crime" thing/
What would be the liberal response when its a ton of British asians being charged with this crime? the optics won't look good

It's not a crime. The Nottingham police force isn't usurping Parliament and amending existing legislation. No one will be charged because it's not a crime.

17-07-2016 05:24PM

Aurum wrote: »

It's not a crime. The Nottingham police force isn't usurping Parliament and amending existing legislation. No one will be charged because it's not a crime.

It is a crime.

They are amending their interpretation of the relevant Act to include unwanted verbal communication. An amended interpretation is a de facto amendment of a legislative act.

Criminal law should require clearly delineated boundaries between socially undesirable, but lawful, behaviour vs unlawful behaviour.

It's a bit like 'Scope Creep' in risk theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

Aurum · 17-07-2016 05:29PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is a crime.

They are amending their interpretation of the relevant Act to include unwanted verbal communication. An amended interpretation is a de facto amendment of a legislative act.

Criminal law should require clearly delineated boundaries between socially undesirable, but lawful, behaviour vs unlawful behaviour.

It's a bit like 'Scope Creep' in risk theories

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scope_creep

If a person is going to be tried for a crime that trial is based on existing criminal legislation and case law. A judge will not consider the interpretation of this law by the Nottingham Police Department to be particularly relevant. A person can't be guilty of a crime just because they committed an otherwise non-criminal act in Nottingham.

FortySeven · 17-07-2016 05:35PM

Nice to see the specially trained officers received their training from the women's center. Feminists now training police forces?

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

Comments