Can I use my own padlock, or do I have to pay to use the gym's?
The murder of Sarah Everard | Couzens sentenced to a whole-life order
- Thread starter VeevaVee
- Start date
Thanks all. Yeah, i was wondering about the wife's part in all this, as I recall her being taken into custody/for questioning at one point as well. It's bloody grim. I assume "finding" remains meant that he tried disposing of the body through mutilation? I don't actually even think I want to know.
This thread sure has taken quite the turn as well. Probably a good symbol for the polarized state of the world at present. Thankfully I don't discuss politics/religion etc....I'm just hear to read/listen/learn.
Maybe it would have been a better idea discussing the legitimacy of the vigil/protest & the police's response separately.
Very interesting indeed, have all these hysterical women been wrong all along and was it actually one of their own that was equally to blame for this?
You do realise your chatting to a police office right?
According to the article, the body was found in a builder's bag and she was identified by dental records. I think this must mean that the body was mutilated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56410943
So the next bright idea is undercover coppers in pubs and clubs, Im sure that will be a roaring success, they will either be very easy to spot as they wont be drinking/dancing etc like everyone else, or will be and will be too pissed to see or do anything.
So the next bright idea is undercover coppers in pubs and clubs, Im sure that will be a roaring success, they will either be very easy to spot as they wont be drinking/dancing etc like everyone else, or will be and will be too pissed to see or do anything.
Ffs. Her poor family & loved ones.
No I think you're grasping there. I'd bet she was a victim of this monster too but will get attacked by the press anyway. Much like Sonia Sutcliffe was hounded.
Jfc
The specific risk of violent crime on the street by a stranger being a woman is a) statistically very, very low and b) not something they are disproportionately affected by (in fact the opposite). Which needs to be remembered amidst all the rhetoric of unsafe streets etc, asking men to walk on the other side of the road, curfews and other things that have popped up.
That's not to say misogyny, sexual harassment and assault isn't a big problem. But I wonder how much of these (the more violent aspects) happen in domestic or familiar settings by a partner or someone otherwise known to them. And to people who are socially and economically vulnerable (things like organised child abuse rings in Rotherham seemingly provoked less outrage).
General misogyny is something to be tackled but phrases like 'men should do xyz' assume that men live in a complete vaccum in society and don't have partners, mothers and sisters. Any sort of long term behavioural change is going to be a broader societal thing (parenting for a start).
But it is still ignoring the violence against men. In the end, it should be about keeping people safe on the street and coming out with the full figures of violence rather than reporting just a segment. The way they are doing things at the moment is turning it into men vs women, rather than against that tiny proportion of people (women included) that commit such disgusting crimes.
They have already come out with something about having undercover police keeping women safe in clubs. Why just women? This is the kind of stuff it leads to when you only look at one part of it. It leads to being people being treated differently based on a very small number of people that happens to be of the same gender.
Just because women commit less of these crimes doesn't mean they should be ignored. I mean there was a board being held up by one protestor saying only 3% committed by women, but I find that disrespectful to the people who would have suffered at their hands. It feels like you are being dismissive of that and again turning it into men vs women. It feels like it is being turned into a competition.
Also, there are studies that have been undertaken that believe women make up a higher proportion, anyway. It is just that men are so unlikely to report a violent crime (believed to be less likely than women) that even more of them go unreported. This seems to be particularly the case in relationships where the woman is the abuser. Being dismissive is one of the major reasons why men don't bother to report because it is not taken seriously enough. And this again adds to the notion that violence against men is not seen as important as it is against women, even when it is done by other men. It doesn't help this major issue.
I don’t think it’s that bad an idea. Especially the bit about being easy to spot. You’ll be surprised how easy it is to blend in or not be spotted in a club/bar. I was at a bar in Islington on NYE 2019 on a night out. I noticed a really out of place looking guy came in and i decided to watch him for a half hour or so. He kept walking up to people trying to dance but never had a drink. Looked to me like he was ‘surfing’ (trying to pick pocket)
Anyway at some point I just had enough and grabbed him and waved over some bouncers. They’d obviously been watching him too because they basically dragged him across the floor and chucked him out. Point being, He was so busy preying on victims he didn’t spot me or the bouncers watching him.
Women are a majority in the system which raises men to be this way.
Based on the government website, men are more likely to be attacked by strangers and women are more likely to be attacked by people they know. However, men seem to also be more likely to be attacked for a private issue or some such.
With the bolded bit, I also wonder whether you are putting people in more danger by asking this?
How big will the distance have to be between a woman and a man at night? If it is too big, won't that just be making people more isolated and more prone to attack? I wonder how many attackers have been put off by seeing someone else on the street, but there will be no statistics for this.
Also, what happens when there is only one path? Will the man have to wait in a dark, quiet area to create enough space for the woman to feel safe? Won't that make him more prone to attack? There are plenty of places you shouldn't hang around in.
I don't think this is an issue that can be sorted by the average man, especially when they are more prone to being attacked on the street. They have to think about protecting themselves as well.
How are you going to acknowledge that the 3% stat is plausible and still try and bring the argument "hey look women attack men too" into it. Comparing the experience of being a lone man walking through the streets at night to a lone women is just completely disingenuous.
Sure if I walked down a rough area at night then I'd be on high alert but it doesn't compare to a woman. Listen & read some of the experiences that women face on a daily basis before playing the victim card because "men get attacked too you know!"
christ these 'all lives matter' 'not all men' posts are cringe as feck.
you really need to have a word with yourself if your reaction to a serious crime against a woman, and the subsequent discussion by women of the daily sexism they have to put up with from shithead men (and no, it doesn't have to be a serious crime for it to be a problem) is to say: 'but men get attacked too!!!'. there is a seperate discussion to have about male aggression and violence against other men, but for gods sake this isn't the time and this isn't the thread for it.
you really need to have a word with yourself if your reaction to a serious crime against a woman, and the subsequent discussion by women of the daily sexism they have to put up with from shithead men (and no, it doesn't have to be a serious crime for it to be a problem) is to say: 'but men get attacked too!!!'. there is a seperate discussion to have about male aggression and violence against other men, but for gods sake this isn't the time and this isn't the thread for it.
Yes, men can be victims too. No, focusing on the particular threats faced by women (as this particular conversation is doing) does not detract from that, at all.
As a man the "men need to do better" argument should only put you at odds with women if a) you are one of the men whose behaviour they're calling out or b) you're a man who is so remarkably insecure and lacking in empathy that your immediate response to women taking a moment to raise a specific problem that impacts them (in which men are the perpetrators to an overwhelming degree, across all countries and across all time) is to immediately try to refocus the conversation so that men are the victims too.
If people want to have a conversation about the problems men face then they should do that. But hijacking an entirely different conversation to make that point is ignorant and tone-deaf beyond belief. And does far less to address the underlying issues than those rightly pointing out that these problems largely lie in the behaviour of men.
As a man the "men need to do better" argument should only put you at odds with women if a) you are one of the men whose behaviour they're calling out or b) you're a man who is so remarkably insecure and lacking in empathy that your immediate response to women taking a moment to raise a specific problem that impacts them (in which men are the perpetrators to an overwhelming degree, across all countries and across all time) is to immediately try to refocus the conversation so that men are the victims too.
If people want to have a conversation about the problems men face then they should do that. But hijacking an entirely different conversation to make that point is ignorant and tone-deaf beyond belief. And does far less to address the underlying issues than those rightly pointing out that these problems largely lie in the behaviour of men.
Last edited:
men getting upset by the curfew idea just makes Baronnes Jones' point for her. outrage!!! at men being forced to stay indoors but women staying indoors at night is for their own safety and is perfectly reasonable. it's just being practical right? you get that that's a ridiculous double standard, right?
and no, no one is suggesting 'all men' are to blame. but there is clearly something embedded within our society where violence, sexual or otherwise, is so prevalenet from men and not women. that's a job for all of us to sort out, and it includes this 'locker room talk' mentality. sexism needs to be stamped out and that does involve all of us - it's not just about violence. and like it or not we as men do benefit from the patriarchy; anytime a woman says 'he's great, he doesn't hit me, he helps with the kids! he helps me with the housework' - that's us benefiting from a system where women are used to pervy, abusive, shitty men, and we get rewarded for just doing things that we should be doing already.
Quality post.
It's a valid point to raise, but I don't understand why a man would take offence at any suggestion that 'men should do xyz'. If the suggestion is that men should given women more space when they're walking alone at night, why would I, or any other man take umbrage with that? We need to stop focusing on men being the victims here and listen to women. What makes them feel safer? What can we do, at a societal level, to help reduce the risk of sexual harassment and violence for women?
A stat the other day showed that 97% of women in this country have faced sexual harassment of some sort. That's a shocking and appalling statistic to have, especially for a Western civilised society.
Sorry, but I disagree with a lot here.
Who's turning it into men vs women? That type of rhetoric has only come from you.
Rape crimes, sexual harassment, sexual violence is overwhelmingly done to women by men. I'm not sure I agree with undercover police as a solution, but if there was a solution to help protect women on night's out, why wouldn't anyone be for that? We've heard stories about the steps a woman needs to take to feel safer when walking alone or travelling at night. Do you think it's a facet of a civilised society that women need to take this level of precaution just to feel safe?
The conversation in this thread isn't about violence in society and what we can do to reduce that. Maybe there's a discussion to be had in the near future. For now, and in this thread, we (the men) need to try and empathise a little more rather than parroting our outdated views.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...-news/man-who-attacked-woman-walking-20157910
Man who attacked woman walking home at night avoids jail 'as he would lose his job'
15 MAR 2021
Javed Miah, 23, ambushed the terrified victim in the street before pulling her to the floor and molesting her
Man who attacked woman walking home at night avoids jail 'as he would lose his job'
15 MAR 2021
Javed Miah, 23, ambushed the terrified victim in the street before pulling her to the floor and molesting her
A man who forced himself on a young woman as she walked home alone late at night has walked free after complaining he would lose his job if he went to jail.
Takeaway worker Javed Miah, 23, ambushed the terrified victim in the street before pulling her to the floor and molesting her.
Miah only fled when the unnamed woman managed to used the SOS function on her mobile phone to call 999, letting out a loud beeping noise.
The victim, who works in Oldham, later told police: “Since the assault, I have not been able to leave the house or work. I do not know if he knows my route to work. I am scared to walk anywhere. I will have to rely on my friends or family to drive me to work out of fear.''
Prosecutor Peter Conroy said: '''She noticed there was a male walking behind her, and he bumped into her. Her right shoulder hurt and she lost her breath because of fear that she did not know what the defendant was going to do. "
Mr Conroy said the defendant asked if she knew what time it was and she replied.
He continued to follow her for around another one minute, the court heard.
The defendant then went up to her and groped her bum cheek.
Mr Conroy added: “She was shocked and frightened. She told him it was not right for him to do this. He had his arms around her chest and then the next thing she knew, she was on the floor on top of him. He lifted his right hand towards her crotch and started to move her hand up towards her chest.
“She said ‘my mind froze, I was in total shock’. She managed to get out her mobile phone and use the SOS function to call 999. This let out a loud beeping sound and this forced him to instantly let go and run away down an alleyway. She had said nothing to him to warrant giving him any right of doing this.''
It's the same reason as why you wouldn't say to an Muslim person for example, please can you sit at the other end of the tube carriage to make me feel more comfortable, because some Islamist terrorists have previously committed attacks. Suggestions that men not wear hooded tops, or should walk across the street should be viewed similarly.
And especially when a lot of the discussion is around what men should do on the street around women as a stranger - which is statistically speaking absolutely not *the* problem when it comes to women's safety. You are talking about a dozen women murdered by a stranger in the last year in the UK - you're much more likely to be a victim of violent crime from someone you know (ie domestic abuse). Whilst I'm not downplaying broader misogyny, the starting point that women are getting abducted on the street on a regular basis is completely wrong.
Just on this particular point, it isn't really the same at all.
In the case of terrorism, it's extremely easy to point to abundant examples of terrorism that have nothing to do with muslims and terrorist threats that pre-date the emergence of the islamic terrorist threat. For example in the US right-wing domestic terrorism is a greater threat than islamic terrorism. And in the UK the main terrorist threat traditionally (and perhaps currently) derives from Northern Ireland. So in this instances even leaving aside the generalisation, the framing is incorrect.
Whereas in the type of incidents this conversation is centred on, men overwhelmingly tend to be the perpetrators, to an extremely large degree. Not just in one given country either but across all countries and all time periods. And even if we want to extend the conversation to include violent crimes against men (as some people seem so keen to do) then men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators on that count too. Again consistently so, across all countries and time periods.
At which point I have to wonder why exactly people would object to the "men are the problem" argument when, quite clearly, they are. Not all men, sure, and it's obviously a generalised argument but it seems an entirely rational and fair one to make.
Are men so insecure that they would sooner focus on the generalised aspect of the argument (that they presumably know doesn't apply to them if their own behaviour is so pristine) than empathise with the women who are being harassed and attacked? If so the problem and the divisiveness comes from their own attitude and lack of empathy, not the argument they're responding too. I mean really, a bit of perspective wouldn't hurt before casting men as the victims of unfair treatment in this ongoing conversation.
Last edited:
no one is demanding that men switch sides of the road. but if something as simple as doing that lessens the anxiety and fear a woman walking alone in the dark may have, then how is this a bad thing? it's just a tiny little thing to help put people at ease. it's weird that this is even being debated, it as if it's some slight on you.
and this isn't just about abduction or rape or murder on the streets. literally no one is saying that 'women are getting abducted on the street on a regular basis'. but they are being cat called, followed, chatted up or leered at when it's unwanted, and this is symptomatic of larger societal problems.
7 years is NOT recent when technology, especially the security industry, is concerned. Things move so quickly in the industry that in two years things that were cutting edge are now legacy devices.
Again, you are talking about the potential for CCTV to be used for nefarious purposes, anything can be used for nefarious purposes, your passport, driving license, email address, Icloud account, Google account etc etc.
You sound rather paranoid, CCTV is there to protect, and will assist in keeping people and making people feel safe.
The arguments for CCTV and in particular facial recognition far outweigh any arguements against. The main arguement against seems to stem from the 'privacy rights' campaign, the very same people who use Google phones, online services, social media etc. The hypocrisy is telling.
Safety is paramount on the streets, and with dwindling Police numbers and lack of trust in the police, things like CCTV can at least play a part in restoring some of that trust along with the safety of our streets but when people argue against it by stipulating 'privacy rights' they are essentially cutting of their noses to spite thier faces, you cannot have your cake and eat it.
I haven't mentioned women being abducted once? And you're narrowing your argument to fit your narrative. Again, the statistic is 97% of women have been sexually harassed (or worse) at some point in their life. That's shocking.
The Muslim example doesn't work (to be honest any race/religion doesn't work). We're talking about men being more conscious about how their behaviour can make women feel.
If by giving a woman more space, or making yourself known, or even just crossing the road to make her feel safe, you feel attacked, then I think you need to take a long look in the mirror.
Great post.
Its not a lot to ask really, I like to run at night, and already cross the road to avoid worrying women walking, and have done for a long while. Its quite obvious if some 6'2 fella comes pelting up the pavement in the dark its going to make someone wary, id feel like shit if Id not done that and freaked someone out.
As a few people have said before, this is all about education from formative years that actions against women of this ilk, touching, groping, stalking, unwanted actions of these kinds are unacceptable in society. I remember the story about the boy who snapped the girl's bra in a lesson in secondary school and the head wanted to dismiss it because 'boys will be boys' but the mother of the girl rightly pressed as it's a sexual assault! Completely randomly (honest!) this video popped on my YouTube home page and is a great example too...
Now we know the pressure female wrestlers are put under the WWE themselves, harking back to the alleged rape during a 'Tribute to the Troops' show, but this is still completely unacceptable. That boy who did that has taken advantage of a situation and slapped a woman's ass without consent. A number of issues are raised here:
This is the level of actions where education has to be used to reinforce that this is not acceptable.
Now we know the pressure female wrestlers are put under the WWE themselves, harking back to the alleged rape during a 'Tribute to the Troops' show, but this is still completely unacceptable. That boy who did that has taken advantage of a situation and slapped a woman's ass without consent. A number of issues are raised here:
- that boy must have seen action like this at home to believe this was acceptable
- it'd be interesting to see what punishment, if any, the kid faced for that (I'd be dragging him by the ear, trying to get backstage to have him apologise as a minimum)
- the brushing-off of the issue doesn't help anyone as it reinforces to that child that this action was acceptable
- the comments are disgusting (from the quick scan one guy mentioned punishing the kid, the rest talk about the kid having 'great taste' being a legend etc)
This is the level of actions where education has to be used to reinforce that this is not acceptable.
With all due respect, I can't be arsed to keep this going as we obviously see it from different points of view which is fair enough. There have been studies done that show that heightened CCTV actually causes increased anxiety and is often ineffectual in securing convictions. Lots of people involved in more 'at risk' areas recommend things like increased manpower to combat crime/antisocial behaviour (social workers, police etc.). There are big moral debates going on at the moment to do with how automated facial recognition needs to be regulated so it's not just me being paranoid, which is a bit of a cheapshot accusation to be honest. The debate surrounding the pervasiveness of CCTV is a lot more complicated than 'it's there to protect' but you obviously don't see it that way, fair enough.
Why should conversations about being attacked in the street be split by gender of victim? End violence against women? Why not just end violence against anyone, full stop? You know fine well there will never be a seperate conversation aimed specifically at male victims.
If you want to stop men becoming criminals a good place to start is promoting 2 parent family structures.
Terrible.
What about the two parent family structures where the man drinks himself into a stupor and knocks a purple tan into his partner of an evening, is that a productive family structure for preventing the perpetuation of domestic abuse?
Obviously not. But none of the, err, suggestions, for making society safer for women thus far seen in this thread do anything to address the dangers posed by domestic violence. Much like they do nothing to address the dangers faced by anyone on their own outside at night.
It doesn't matter how many parents a family has; if boys are being taught it's OK to treat women with contempt, as property or as unequal to men, they will grow up to treat women as such.
If the problem is 'how do we reduce the number of violent male criminals in society', then yes it does matter. At least insofar as it's a significant factor in driving criminality.
But I guess the question is if we want to have shallow conversations about how to make women feel safer, without actually making them safer. Or if want to look at reducing the element in society of men who are violent against women.
With that specific scenario you have to balance giving out appropriate punishments with whether you'd criminalise a kid for life with a sexual assault charge at the age of say 11 for twanging a girl's bra strap. Education as ever is the key and the younger it starts the better. Saying that, presumably what education you set kids on boundaries will be competing in their head with what learned behaviours they subconsciously pick up from TV, films, their male family members etc....Underlines how ingrained it is.
I wonder if the wider debates on tackling sexual abuse are best held in their own thread or whether this one has just naturally broadened out to cover the subject.
Sorry but where is your source for this?