I didn't see any posts talking about her manipulating or using him, maybe I missed that, but the second bit seems to be the case yeah.
Has political correctness actually gone mad?
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Oh right I hadn't seen that, I didn't think he had gone into details beyond saying "She was a cnut for additional reasons but that wasnt really the original point" in the post on this page.
He lived in accommodation with drop in support from social care services, who I worked for, so I knew exactly how their relationship was. I can't go into too much detail, so you'll have to take my word for it. It was manipulative and exploitative in one direction only. In brief, they met when he was about 19 (mental age considerably less) and she was 17, and her and her friends befriended him so he would buy them alcohol. They mocked him and abused his willingness to have some friends. Years later (mid 20s) she was down on her luck, he had social care funded accommodation, so she reconnected and used him for accommodation (she didn't legally live there, she wasn't allowed to, which was a whole other issue).
I think the law I was referring to, which gave the police/CPS the power to press charges without the victims consent was well intentioned. I'm sure it was hard fought for by domestic abuse campaigners for many years. I'm sure it has helped a lot of cases find justice. However, it was also too broad and gives too much power to PC Plod. ANY incident that involves current or former partners is automatically considered domestic abuse, and automatically means that the police can press charges without the victims consent. I'm sure in this case, it was a new power and the police wanted to try it out. They knew or should have known it was unnecessary. I don't trust PC Plod to be able to weigh up these kind of situations. Each of them is also incentized to get a result, they have targets. Burglaries are time consuming and rarely result in, well, a result. Upsetting someone, easy result.
In terms of harassment and stalking. I can't really comment on stalking, as I have no idea how common it is or what is done about it. In terms of harassment, I think in its current form it's one of the most ridiculous "crimes" in existence. To me harassment is hounding someone, going out of your way to intentionally berate or annoy them. However, in the law as it stands it is as broad as making unwanted contact on two occasions (Protection from Harassment Act), or one offensive remark in public (Public Order Act). I don't think the state should be doing anything in 99% of cases where someone has upset someone else. And if they do, in the first instance, it shouldn't be PC Plod who gets involved.
Yes, in this case she didn't want to press charges. She reported him either out of spite or just for a joke, I'm not sure, she was a maniac and I don't know what went on in her head. Maybe it was a feck you to the social care provider, as they had reported her to social services. She didn't really care, she obviously didn't want to attend court and give evidence. I doubt she could have kept a straight face throughout it, and she couldn't have kept her cool whilst her character was being assassinated. But, lucky for her, the police were willing to do so without her. And the magistrate said her character was irrelevant/mitigation only. One email saying she was upset was all that was needed. It's just unbelievable really. As far as I or anyone else knows, she didn't even write the fecking email. And who knows if anything said in the email was even true or not.
Not even sure what the point of your questions is or why I'm discussing it, except it's probably the one event in my life that's made me the most disgusted.
I can pretty categorically state that someone who takes advantage of a mentally disabled person for their own gain is fair game to be labelled a cnut, 100% of the time.
Wow this place really has become a depraved shit hole. Let's just leave this blatant misogyny up shall we, very on brand.
Needless to say, if a poster tells a similar story from their own experiences and calls a bloke in it a cnut, nobody bats an eye.
Pretty interesting that 'woman' still beats 'learning disability' in oppression/privilege top trumps, mind. Hard to keep score sometimes.
Pretty interesting that 'woman' still beats 'learning disability' in oppression/privilege top trumps, mind. Hard to keep score sometimes.
Wowee
You're so close to realizing the historical power dynamic between the genders, in addition to the general physical difference which might lead a woman to being more likely to "go crying to the police" over the supposed actions of their ex.
Pfft, just imagine how things would look if the Caf wasn't a woke far-left commie forum.
It's incredible how people can literally turn any situation into an opportunity for virtue signalling. We have a social worker explaining how someone emotionally manipulated and took advantage of a mentally disabled person, only to then call the police on him once she was done using him(what a surprise that he couldn't understand that she didn't want to be with him after that?), and 'misogny' is what you extract from it. Does a woman have to murder someone for it to be ok to criticise her?
Emotionally exploiting a vulnerable individual to that extent, for booze, money and free accommodation, would be something that only an irredeemable cnut could do, no?
I don't think she was originally labelled a cnut for the act of reporting harassment.
Obviously just taking this story at face value.
I don't think she was originally labelled a cnut for the act of reporting harassment.
Obviously just taking this story at face value.
You're virtue signalling just as hard as anyone else here.
Mate, you've just waded in and decided who's in the right based on absolutely nothing but the demographics of the people in the situation.
Being smug and condescending to the posters pointing out that that's bollocks doesn't make you right.
I didn't decide anything. He told an anecdote which I wasn't involved in, so how could I possibly do that? All I did was ask some questions, and then comment on his choice of phrasing.
You mean like this?
How so? I've read multiple posts detailing a story, and come to what I see to be a fair assessment, that this individual woman is not a very nice person. If you don't like the word cnut in general, fair enough, but otherwise I don't see an issue with calling her that, in this case.
Who's being misogynistic?
- Posters who repeatedly frame a woman within a story of reported harassment as cnuts: A woman who apparently merely sent an email and didn't want to press charges against a former partner.
- Posters who cling to the story and defend the description therein.
- Poster who joke of women being pigs.
- Mods who must surely see this shite and the objections other posters raise and yet repeatedly do feck all about it, leaving it to fester and attract all the forum vermin.
Did you just completely ignore the other aspect of the story, that she took advantage of a man with learning disabilities?
Also, calling 1 woman a cnut for reasons that a poster explained can also be categorized under "misogyny" now?
We should only call men ‘cnuts’ now?
Referring to Lauren Boebert & Marjorie Taylor Greene as cnuts is a no-no?
Referring to Lauren Boebert & Marjorie Taylor Greene as cnuts is a no-no?
I get that you can't go into the details, I had some questions regarding about how you knew her intentions but knowing your relationship with the man through your employment I assume you were privy to details of their relationship.
I disagree about your assessment of how law enforcement handle something like harassment and the legislation surrounding it though, especially as practices have changed since the incident you're talking about occurred. You mentioned in this and your initial post that the police are incentivised for getting a conviction in a case like this, but police aren't set targets, and there is no performance related rewards for achieving a number of arrests etc. The Protection from Harassment act isn't as broad as making unwanted contact on two occasions. It's explicitly stated that 'the conduct must be oppressive and unreasonable'. Coupled with that are the prerequisites for what constitutes harassment.
- Persistent and intentional oppressive conduct, aimed at causing fear or distress
-The harassment must reach a level of seriousness beyond irritations, annoyances or causing mild upset
-The gravity of the harassment must be of a level which would sustain criminal liability
- The person ought to know that it involves harassment of another. If a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct involved harassment. The test is objective. It’s not swayed by the feelings of the claimant
From the information you've supplied, there is absolutely zero chance that the man would have had a court date, let alone a conviction today. Even more so without a victim's statement. Safeguarding also comes into play, as one of the primary factors when it comes to enforcing this act is that the accused must be fully cognisant of the fact that what he is doing is harassment.
I think once all the above is taking into account, I think we can safely say that harassment is much more serious than simply someone upsetting someone. It's also not something that happens in a vacuum. Persistent harassment can and often does lead to more egregious crimes. While both genders can be victims (or aggressors) when it comes to harassment, if a woman is murdered, it's statically most likely to be a former partner (or a current one). This often follows a pattern of being harassed/stalked. It is important that the state does get involved, if someone is facing oppressive, serious and objectively distressing behaviour they absolutely need protection.
I don't know if the incident you mentioned occurred very early on after the act was created and there was still fundamental flaws (though even from the get go the incident you've describe should have morally and legally never ended in a conviction), the courts were incompetent to the point of criminality, or there is a piece of evidence that you weren't privy to/forgot. The way the law deals with harassment today is flawed in the sense that it makes it very hard to criminalise those who do harass, the same way that sexual abusers and rapists are virtually guaranteed to never face a day in court. Most people, men and women, are very likely to not even report harassment as chances are it'll lead nowhere. At best they could probably hope for a PIN being issued. You mentioned harassment being an easy case for results, but investigations conducted by HM crown prosecution services show this isn't the case. Of the cases reviewed, 95% of the victims were deemed to have been provided with an inadequate level of care. They mention a case where despite a domestic abuser with a knife threatening his victim that they were going to kill them, they were only issued with a PIN.
You've just invented a hypothetical in your head to get mad at.
I wrote that post last year. I've spoken about it in other posts, but that's the only where I could remember the thread. The poster made a comment about a cnut crying to the police over harassment claims, and then went on to attack legislation surrounding harassment, and how the legislation should be scrapped and it's not something the government should be interfering with. That absolutely deserved to be questioned, even more so when one is well informed on the legislation surrounding harassment, as they'd know from the events described there would be no conviction (maybe a PIN but still extremely unlikely). With the additional posts and information the poster has provided, I understand their viewpoint a little better and I understand the incident understandably had an emotional impact on them. I also think they're being truthful even if I suspect they're misremembering the specifics of the case, as by their own admission it must have been over two decades ago and by the letter of the law the man could not have possibly been guilty with the information we have.
I quoted my post above to show you why when someone calls someone a cnut for going to the police about harassment and how harassment is too strongly enforced, I'm going to ask questions as to why they think that and that I disagree with their assessment over the legislation. You can call it virtue signalling I don't care as long as I make my points.
Yeah, you obtuse cnuts don't get it.
That was the framing of the story you imbeciles. nimic gave the guy the courtesy of explaining that there may have been more to the story and that resorting to the term "cnut" in reference to a harassment complainant is not the done thing. When actually any extenuating circumstances are irrelevant and the casually thrown out term "cnut" entirely inappropriate given the way the story was initially unfurled, about an anonymous woman in someone's internet story.
Without going around in circles, my issues was with the insinuation that the poster was a mysogynist(or something of that ilk), with zero follow up, once more details were provided; not with anyone asking for more info on the story. I'll leave it at that.
Last edited:
The irony.. But yeah, honest mistake when hunting for witches
It's the exact opposite of that. It's a hypothetical where nobody gets mad.
This argument could have been avoided if we stop using cnut, dick, feck, basic biology, as insults.
If you put cnut into the search engine on the Caf, I think you would see it would take some time to reverse this trend. Anyway wouldn't it be "PC gone mad" if we had to refer to nasty people or people we don't like as "meanies" rather than above insults?
That’s actually pretty good
Use a dictionary, find a word that is relevant and insulting. You could also use adjectives.
Sounds like a fun way to expand our vocabulary.
And having to stop and think of something actually relevant to say might even lead to constructive debate
feck that shit.
Not calling a woman "c*nt" is a minimum requirement for any kind of civilized discourse.
Using derogatory insults for a woman is not nice or civilized, just like calling Rhrodi Giggs wife a slag isn't nice either.
Anyway, I just had to skim quickly through the Margaret thatcher threads to see how many used that insult for her which is not surprising that it's sanctioned in her case since she was after all a hated politician. And I agree, it's a unpleasant thing to call a women. It's not something I have a habit of.
Last edited:
It’s not nice but I’m struggling to see the misogyny. Cnut is used to describe men as often as it’s used to describe women. It’s gender neutral. Dick, cock or prick would tend to be used only for men. Which makes the former a more progressive kind of insult, if you ask me. Along with asshole and gooch.
What is this?
The perineum