|
Post by Neshead on Mar 15, 2021 16:55:47 GMT
The police have an impossible job at the minute. I won't deny that some are shits etc, but most want to do a decent job, for the right reasons. The bottom line is that vigil was illegal - that's not to say it should have been, but for months now, the government has been demanding that the police impose COVID restrictions rigidly. You can't be subjective about how the law is policed. Its a fucking mess, and its the politicians who've created that mess, plain and simple. Two things would have stopped what happened, a skeleton police presence or not having the vigil at all. The timing of this vigil stinks to high hell, women have unfortunately been murdered before but not this reaction. And when in lockdown? Why not wait a month when restrictions are lifted. The terrible death of a young woman has been turned into a political circus where the blame is dropped at the door of plod on the beat. Still amazes me why the public still fight amongst themselves while the real enemy play them like an old fiddle. The lifting of lockdown is going to save the government the scenes witnessed in Holland. Never known the world as crazy and destructive as this. I kinda miss the old days when everything seemed a lot simpler and less agressive.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Mar 15, 2021 18:13:15 GMT
The police have an impossible job at the minute. I won't deny that some are shits etc, but most want to do a decent job, for the right reasons. The bottom line is that vigil was illegal - that's not to say it should have been, but for months now, the government has been demanding that the police impose COVID restrictions rigidly. You can't be subjective about how the law is policed. Its a fucking mess, and its the politicians who've created that mess, plain and simple. Two things would have stopped what happened, a skeleton police presence or not having the vigil at all. The timing of this vigil stinks to high hell, women have unfortunately been murdered before but not this reaction. And when in lockdown? Why not wait a month when restrictions are lifted. The terrible death of a young woman has been turned into a political circus where the blame is dropped at the door of plod on the beat. Still amazes me why the public still fight amongst themselves while the real enemy play them like an old fiddle. The lifting of lockdown is going to save the government the scenes witnessed in Holland. Never known the world as crazy and destructive as this. I kinda miss the old days when everything seemed a lot simpler and less agressive. Spot on. Society is fucked. As much as anything, the identity politics agenda is causing mayhem. And the media has blood on its hands for the way its building the narrative around this, demonising all men is hugely damaging to society as a whole, not just men.
|
|
|
Post by Lofty on Mar 15, 2021 18:34:20 GMT
I'm finding it increasingly frustrating that you seem to have to have a side these days.
Brexit or pro EU Tory or Labour Pro-vax or Anti-vax Pro-police or Anti-Police Pro-BLM or a raging racist Biden or Trump
It's possible to have different viewpoints on a subject and think there are cunts on both 'sides' but that doesn't seem acceptable, you're either one or the other. Maybe it's always been that way but it seems to be getting worse to me.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Mar 15, 2021 18:45:34 GMT
I'm finding it increasingly frustrating that you seem to have to have a side these days. Brexit or pro EU Tory or Labour Pro-vax or Anti-vax Pro-police or Anti-Police Pro-BLM or a raging racist Biden or Trump It's possible to have different viewpoints on a subject and think there are cunts on both 'sides' but that doesn't seem acceptable, you're either one or the other. Maybe it's always been that way but it seems to be getting worse to me. Its absolutely getting worse, and it'll get much worse still. Its inevitable, because everything is now about assigning people to categories and groups and then basing all dialogue around claims of injustice and victimhood sought by activists in said group, with the media being the mother of all shit stirrers. Theres zero attempt at anything resembling balanced, objective and fact based reporting. Free speech is gone, critical thinking is gone - our schools are now pushing ideology over critical thinking, civil discourse and constructive debate is gone. Equality is gone too - these 'activists' aren't interested in equality. Not one bit. This is another example of a horrific and tragic death, being hijacked by the rent a mob, determined to cause anarchy. Not being widely reported in the mainstream media, but those at the centre of the ‘vigil’ chanting ‘no justice, no peace, fuck the police’. The same chant as was heard when the BLM protests were hijacked too. 26 officers injured too, apparently.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Mar 15, 2021 19:32:10 GMT
I'm finding it increasingly frustrating that you seem to have to have a side these days. Brexit or pro EU Tory or Labour Pro-vax or Anti-vax Pro-police or Anti-Police Pro-BLM or a raging racist Biden or Trump It's possible to have different viewpoints on a subject and think there are cunts on both 'sides' but that doesn't seem acceptable, you're either one or the other. Maybe it's always been that way but it seems to be getting worse to me. Funny my lad said something alluding to this yesterday when we were discussing all this shit, he said my political spectrum is all over the place, one minute your left one minute your right. Because I can see both sides of a debate, unfoetunately as you say now it's pick a side. Christ even the fire brigades Union stuck the boot in on the met on twitter yesterday. I mean, what the fuck has it got to do with them, even the FBU has a fucking agenda. We're one step away from a emergency services straightener event at Keelham Farm shop.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Mar 15, 2021 19:57:23 GMT
I'm finding it increasingly frustrating that you seem to have to have a side these days. Brexit or pro EU Tory or Labour Pro-vax or Anti-vax Pro-police or Anti-Police Pro-BLM or a raging racist Biden or Trump It's possible to have different viewpoints on a subject and think there are cunts on both 'sides' but that doesn't seem acceptable, you're either one or the other. Maybe it's always been that way but it seems to be getting worse to me. Funny my lad said something alluding to this yesterday when we were discussing all this shit, he said my political spectrum is all over the place, one minute your left one minute your right. Because I can see both sides of a debate, unfoetunately as you say now it's pick a side. Christ even the fire brigades Union stuck the boot in on the met on twitter yesterday. I mean, what the fuck has it got to do with them, even the FBU has a fucking agenda. We're one step away from a emergency services straightener event at Keelham Farm shop. I'm the same. Its healthy to challenge your thinking. I'm right more than I am left, but I'll happily have a sensible debate about opposing views with anyone. Its a rarity though. The irony is, the best place for me to have a sensible and intelligent, albeit profane debate with anyone is probably on here. On my 'challenge your thinking' point - people are actively guided away from doing that. And most of it is to do with social media. The big tech platforms are programmed to keep flooding you with news that just reinforces rather than expands your perspective. We have a handful of billionaires deciding what we read and think. You have to actively search for different perspectives, which I try to do all the time. This mess has been coming- I've been following Jordan Peterson for a while and he's predicted much of the societal breakdown that we're seeing for a few years. Mainstream media has a lot to answer for too. It was the same last summer - only one perspective is ever pushed. I saw a comment on Sky News earlier which read 'I've been a bouncer for 15 years and I've been stabbed, bottled, assaulted, shot. Every time, someone was prosecuted but I know a woman who was raped and there was no conviction'. As if its anywhere near as fucking simple as that. And the stat that 'only 3% of reported rapes end in a conviction'. Which sounds problematic, but rape is the most difficult crime to try because of the weight of evidence needed to prove a lack of consent. Im not sure how you fix it, but its a very complicated issue. These cycles of extremist thinking always repeat, and they generally always end in war and lots of death.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 15, 2021 20:10:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by Neshead on Mar 15, 2021 20:10:46 GMT
Funny my lad said something alluding to this yesterday when we were discussing all this shit, he said my political spectrum is all over the place, one minute your left one minute your right. Because I can see both sides of a debate, unfoetunately as you say now it's pick a side. Christ even the fire brigades Union stuck the boot in on the met on twitter yesterday. I mean, what the fuck has it got to do with them, even the FBU has a fucking agenda. We're one step away from a emergency services straightener event at Keelham Farm shop. I'm the same. Its healthy to challenge your thinking. I'm right more than I am left, but I'll happily have a sensible debate about opposing views with anyone. Its a rarity though. The irony is, the best place for me to have a sensible and intelligent, albeit profane debate with anyone is probably on here. On my 'challenge your thinking' point - people are actively guided away from doing that. And most of it is to do with social media. The big tech platforms are programmed to keep flooding you with news that just reinforces rather than expands your perspective. We have a handful of billionaires deciding what we read and think. You have to actively search for different perspectives, which I try to do all the time. This mess has been coming- I've been following Jordan Peterson for a while and he's predicted much of the societal breakdown that we're seeing for a few years. Mainstream media has a lot to answer for too. It was the same last summer - only one perspective is ever pushed. I saw a comment on Sky News earlier which read 'I've been a bouncer for 15 years and I've been stabbed, bottled, assaulted, shot. Every time, someone was prosecuted but I know a woman who was raped and there was no conviction'. As if its anywhere near as fucking simple as that. And the stat that 'only 3% of reported rapes end in a conviction'. Which sounds problematic, but rape is the most difficult crime to try because of the weight of evidence needed to prove a lack of consent. Im not sure how you fix it, but its a very complicated issue. These cycles of extremist thinking always repeat, and they generally always end in war and lots of death. Ive heard this said over the last few days after this poor woman's death,'we want action from the police.' What exactly do they want the police to do? We are on very dangerous ground in the legal system if we start to change the law to make men guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. Because thats essentially what they are wanting to do. If they really want to ellicit change amongst the male fraternity then start looking at religion an how that allows men to do what they do. To pardon a pun though they don't have the balls.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Mar 15, 2021 20:19:13 GMT
I think that's exactly the sort of thing we'll see. Legislative change that starts to treat men differently in the eyes of the law. Its where we're heading.
Bit of personal experience. I had my eldest daughter at 19. An unplanned thing with someone I was never going to spend my life with. We gave it a go, stayed together until my daughter was 1 but then we split. In that year, I was (and still am) a very hands on father and in my opinion did more for and was closer to my daughter than her mum. In any event, I certainly did my bit. Our split wasn't good, as it was my decision and the mum took it badly. Turned very nasty, tried to stop any access I had with me daughter etc. She tried to fight me in the courts, which fortunately sided with me - mainly because I was reasonable and responsible in my approach and she was so downright nasty and unreasonable that even her own solicitor looked embarrassed. Anyway, she spat her dummy out and threatened to fabricate allegations of me being abusive and harassing unless I stopped seeing my daughter. And that sort of approach - women using kids as pawns - happens all the fucking time. Gets next to no mention publicly because it doesn't suit the feminist agenda. In the end I had to resort to secretly wearing a recording device every time I collected and returned my daughter. Oppressive male patriarchy putting every woman in danger and all that.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Mar 15, 2021 20:46:28 GMT
Neshead , that FBU Facebook post has been removed. Been a big backlash against it, rightfully so.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 15, 2021 21:20:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Mar 15, 2021 21:20:20 GMT
Made me raise an eyebrow when I saw the Mets response to a woman being kidnapped and murdered by a policeman was to put more policeman on the streets to make people feel safe.
|
|
|
Post by tetchyarse on Mar 16, 2021 9:44:12 GMT
I don't think it is getting worse, but you see more of it because the 24-hour news networks have to fill all that dead air with something. Add in Twitter where every arsehole has a toxic opinion, and newspapers which now just report on what some toxic arsehole said on Twitter because it's cheaper than employing actual journalists, and of course it feels worse. It's 85 years since the Battle of Cable Street, things haven't changed that much.
Divide-and-conquer is the oldest trick in the book. The right wing are trying to engineer a "culture war" because they think it will shore up their support base- and they're probably not wrong. And the left are happy to take the bait.
If you're more angry about BLM- a nothing band of nothing people doing nothing- than the government stealing billions under the cover of Covid then I'd say that the tactics of divide-and-conquer and a manufactured culture war are working.
As for the police, "26 officers got injured". Did they. Did they really. Colour me sceptical. Funny how these stories come out when the police are getting criticised for wading in with shit-kicking boots in unnecessarily.
As for the police, the Metropolitan Police had "spies" in political groups and those "spies" used their position to lie about who they were and manipulate women into sleeping with them. It is huge and widespread sexual violence against women. Has anyone been punished? Don't be fucking stupid.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 9:58:46 GMT
Post by tetchyarse on Mar 16, 2021 9:58:46 GMT
Two things would have stopped what happened, a skeleton police presence or not having the vigil at all. The timing of this vigil stinks to high hell, women have unfortunately been murdered before but not this reaction. And when in lockdown? Why not wait a month when restrictions are lifted. The terrible death of a young woman has been turned into a political circus where the blame is dropped at the door of plod on the beat. Still amazes me why the public still fight amongst themselves while the real enemy play them like an old fiddle. The lifting of lockdown is going to save the government the scenes witnessed in Holland. Never known the world as crazy and destructive as this. I kinda miss the old days when everything seemed a lot simpler and less agressive. Spot on. Society is fucked. As much as anything, the identity politics agenda is causing mayhem. And the media has blood on its hands for the way its building the narrative around this, demonising all men is hugely damaging to society as a whole, not just men. Nobody is demonising all men. Nobody- or nobody sensible- is saying that all men are rapists and abusers. But the problem is that a) you don't know who the bastards are and b) society in general are all to happy to believe that those who allege abuse are lying, especially if the men are "respectable".
I have quite a few female friends. Two have been raped at knifepoint in a city centre, one was repeatedly anally raped by a soldider she went home with (and yes, she would have consented to vaginal sex- but he didn't want that), yet another was repeatedly raped at school by two of her fellow pupils. My ex was, until recently, with a man who beat her up and stole from her and my daughter. I didn't find out as they lived 100 miles away and, mysteriously, my ex became withdrawn and I had to collect my daughter from my daughter's grandma. I thought my ex was just being a dick. I suspect he'd have abused my daughter too if I wasn't in regular contact, and if I ever find out where he is I will kill him. Another friend had a boyfriend who was caught looking at images of child sexual abuse- the police seized her laptop and her housemate's laptop too and, two years on, still hasn't got it back and had to buy her housemate a new laptop. This week my old primary school headmaster- as respectable as they ever came- was sent to prison for abusing girls in the school. I used to work for a criminal defence law firm and the worst case I worked on was yet another respectable pillar of the community who raped his daughter for 15 years from the age of 5.
We all know it is #notallmen, but that's not the fucking point. The point is that #somemen get away with it.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 10:13:35 GMT
Post by bantam147 on Mar 16, 2021 10:13:35 GMT
Nobody is demonising all men? In the last week, we’ve literally had a politician make a motion in the House of Lords that all men should be subject to a curfew. All men. The First Minister of Wales has said the same thing. Many of those protesting are making blanket statements about how ‘Men need to change’. The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ is widely banded about. So yes, some people ARE demonising all men. That IS the fucking point. It might be noise, but it has influence and it isn’t going to go away.
The examples you cite are horrific. I can cite similar examples from within my own social circle and my own wife works in a a school, specifically in support of vulnerable children. So i too hear all sorts of horror stories. Don’t think I’m not equally appalled. Even in criminal circles, those who do jail time as a result of sexual offences - particularly offences against children, have their lives made hell in prison (rightfully so).
Some men DO get away with sexual assaults. It’s true and its horrifying. But how do you change it? I don’t think you can, materially, because a staple of our legal system is that a criminal conviction works on the presumption of innocence and the need for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That can’t be changed - it just can’t. And how do you prove a lack of consent? It’s extremely difficult, for a number of reasons. Made even more difficult by the extent to which sex has become almost trivialised in modern society.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 12:22:01 GMT
Post by tetchyarse on Mar 16, 2021 12:22:01 GMT
Nobody is demonising all men? In the last week, we’ve literally had a politician make a motion in the House of Lords that all men should be subject to a curfew. All men. The First Minister of Wales has said the same thing. Many of those protesting are making blanket statements about how ‘Men need to change’. The phrase ‘toxic masculinity’ is widely banded about. So yes, some people ARE demonising all men. That IS the fucking point. It might be noise, but it has influence and it isn’t going to go away. The examples you cite are horrific. I can cite similar examples from within my own social circle and my own wife works in a a school, specifically in support of vulnerable children. So i too hear all sorts of horror stories. Don’t think I’m not equally appalled. Even in criminal circles, those who do jail time as a result of sexual offences - particularly offences against children, have their lives made hell in prison (rightfully so). Some men DO get away with sexual assaults. It’s true and its horrifying. But how do you change it? I don’t think you can, materially, because a staple of our legal system is that a criminal conviction works on the presumption of innocence and the need for proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. That can’t be changed - it just can’t. And how do you prove a lack of consent? It’s extremely difficult, for a number of reasons. Made even more difficult by the extent to which sex has become almost trivialised in modern society. Baroness Jenny Jones is, even by Green Party standards, a weirdo who can safely be ignored, as she has been for her whole political career. The First Minister for Wales said the exact opposite of what the media reported him as saying.
The fact the media reported Mark Drakeford as saying he wanted a curfew for men, when he said no such thing (his actual words were that it was not top of his list and would only even be considered in a severe crisis- a typical political answer refusing to rule anything out) , is a fascinating insight into how these things work.
"Toxic masculinity" isn't demonising men, and it's interesting you interpret it that way. It's about how society believes men should behave, and how that's as damaging to men as anyone else. Men don't cry, men should just be interested in football and shagging birds, if women don't want to have sex with them then they're failures, etc etc. All very unhealthy.
It's hard to prove a lack of consent, but it's even harder when a certain footballer is allowed to claim a passed-out-drunk girl consented to sex because she previously had sex with a man, and when doing so wanted it doggy-style and shouted "fuck me harder", and the Supreme Court agreed that this meant she must have consented because the footballer said she wanted it doggy-style and said "fuck me harder".
But proving lack of consent isn't really the point- if you're arguing about consent, the incident has already happened. Does a woman consent to sex if she gets nagged and pressured into submission, or if a man lies about his intentions? If she backs down and agrees we can't really say she was raped. But there's no social consequences for pressuring people into sex. The law can only do so much. Like with drink driving, it isn't the law that has largely stopped drink driving, it's because it's become so socially unacceptable that your friends would disown you if you did it.
Like with the footballer, even if the blind drunk girl did consent to sex (unlikely given she passed out and woke up naked and alone in a strange hotel room in a puddle of her own urine, but he was acquitted so hey ho), the fact he had sex with her in that state then climbed out the window and left her to it should have been enough to finish off his career. But no, lads will be lads.
You see something similar with our own Tyrrell Robinson too. The way he manipulated and abused that girl was disgraceful, even leaving aside her age, but if she'd been 16 it would have been just as damaging but nobody would have given a shit. Same with Adam Johnson. Same, for that matter, with the likes of Max Clifford- when he was a man in his 50s grooming 16 year olds nobody gave a fuck, it was only when he moved on to 14 and 15 year olds that people cared, as though the fact it's legal makes it acceptable.
Anyway, Covid. I've had my second Pfizer jab this week and I'm pissed off because my 5G signal is still shit.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 12:58:52 GMT
Post by bantam147 on Mar 16, 2021 12:58:52 GMT
Weirdo or not, it was given a platform to be suggested in the House or Lords. Drakeford said: ‘If there were a crisis, and you needed to take dramatic action that allowed that crisis to be drawn down, then of course you’d be prepared to consider all measures that would make a difference. ‘But the curfew measure you’ve described, it could only ever be a temporary answer and therefore it’s not at the top of our list.’ He’s playing it down, but he’s also legitimising it as a possibility. It perpetuates the idea that a solution might be a blanket curfew on all men. It’s weak, wishy washy statement by a politician, but what he should have done was shut it down immediately. It’s a ridiculous and prejudicial idea and its based on the premise that its men at large who are the problem. I see that narrative played out on a number of platforms. It’s becoming more and more problematic and similar to complex and sensitive discussions relating to race, issues relating to gender are becoming more and more divisive. It’s leading us to a very dark place.
The Ched Evans case has reasonable doubt all over it from the start, which is presumably why he was found not guilty on re-trial. The 2 men in the room testified that she gave consent and the forensic evidence at trial strongly challenged that her blood alcohol levels taken the following morning weren’t consistent with what would be expected for someone intoxicated to the sort of levels she’d claimed. The men in the room and a witness outside the room testify to her saying ‘fuck me harder’ - that’s pretty explicit in terms of inferring consent. Quite literally. 2 people have testified as to what happened in the room, one claims not to remember. No one else knows for sure. But again, it serves to illustrate the challenge around the definition of consent, including drunken consent. Lets not kid ourselves - there an men and women going out on a regular basis to become intoxicated and have sex with strangers. It’s become normalised in our society - that’s not the fault of men and it doesn’t attribute blame to victims, and indeed seems to be something that ‘feminists’ are pushing strongly for women to be able to do just as much as men. I don’t disagree, but it blurs the landscape of how we judge legal sexual behaviour. And the word ‘legal’ is key - just because an act may be seen as distasteful or immoral by some, doesn’t make it illegal. There are certain incidents that are so obviously done without consent (whether provable or not in a court of law) but there are also an awful lot of incidents that are ‘grey’. To your question, if a woman is nagged or pressured into having sex, is that consent? That’s such an ambiguous question is can’t possibly be answered in a yes or no fashion, nor could you build a law around it or hold men (or women) to such a standard. For example, I’ve been married for 20 years; during that time have my wife and I had sex as a result of me wanting it more than she has, or me ‘pestering’ - absolutely. The reverse is also true. Have we been guilty of assaulting one another? To any possible level of rationale, the answer is ‘100% no’ in my mind and would be the same for my wife. In a different context, the answer could be very different. And that’s the point. The definition of what constitutes a sexual assault and consent, is not as black and white as anyone would like.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 14:11:44 GMT
Post by tetchyarse on Mar 16, 2021 14:11:44 GMT
Prosecuting rape will always be hard, unless there is violence- he said she consented, she said she didn't, or says she was so drunk she can't remember anything, who do you believe? Ched Evans proved that much- the first jury believed the victim and he spent hundreds of thousands of pounds throwing the kitchen sink at it until he eventually got the decision overturned. The reasons for it stunk in my opinion, sexual history shouldn't be brought up in rape cases, but we are where we are. He was "exonerated", and even if you think he didn't rape her, nobody seems to care about just how much of a cunt he was to leave her there passed out in a hotel room. And I'd agree that being a cunt shouldn't be illegal, but the attitude now seems to be that if it's not illegal it's absolutely fine.
But the law is only a small part of what is acceptable and what is not. Look at Max Clifford, when he was pressuring 16 year old girls to have sex with him in exchange for promises of stardom he wasn't doing anything illegal, but everyone just laughed about it and didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it. You see the same with Trump and Clinton in the US. It was only when he did it to 14 year olds that people seemed to give a shit. Adam Johnson's victim was 14/15, if she'd been a year older nobody would have given a toss either, footballers eh. No easy answers, absolutely, especially as we know there are plenty of young women who'd love to shag a footballer- and good luck to them. But a good starting point would be to make Johnson or Robinson's sort of predatory behaviour socially unacceptable regardless of the age of the girl.
To go back to rape cases, they're hard to prosecute without violence. But I'm sorry, men *do* know when a woman is consenting and when she isn't. They just know that it's unlikely that a lack of consent can be proven. I'm not talking about the negotiations, for want of a better word, we all have in marriages. If a wife says she's really really not in the mood and a husband goes and does it anyway, there's no way you'd ever get to prosecute that but it's clearly not acceptable.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 15:01:28 GMT
Post by bantam147 on Mar 16, 2021 15:01:28 GMT
Bringing sexual history into a case is rarely done and there's certainly something about it that sits uneasily. It implies that a woman may be seen as promisuous and therefore 'asking for it'. But in that particular case, I believe it was done in order to demonstrate the behaviours and language that the 'victim' typically exhibits through consensual sex, as those factors were central to the evidence presented. There's an argument to say its therefore relevant. As I say, its just another aspect of what often makes rape cases so difficult to deal with. There are no easy answers. At the very least, Evans acted poorly/like a cunt, and demonstrated a complete disregard for the girls well being. However - and I want to choose my words really carefully here, because its such a sensitive subject - when a woman (or a man for that matters) agrees to go to a hotel room with someone they've just met/hardly know, often having had at least something to drink, are they prioritizing their own safety and well being? Now, that absolutely doesn't assign blame for any sexual assault at the door of the victim. However, IF the sex was completely consensual, is the wellbeing and the state she's left in the responsibility of the men in the room, or the woman herself? To the point that men do know when a woman is consenting, I don't AWLAYS think that is the case. I'd like to think, and I'd be confident to say I've never misinterpreted or misrepresented when a woman has consented with me, but when you're looking at situations whereby 2 strangers are having sex, under the influence of sex or drugs, its not out of the realms of fantasy that things are misinterpreted or even remembered differently in the cold light of day. That clearly doesn't represent all situations of alleged rape or unclear consent, but it'll represent some.
The idea of older men manipulating their power to pressure women into sex, especially women who are barely more than girls, makes me very uneasy too. And again, the context will be important. And whilst its more a problem for women than men, there feels like a double standard at play. For example - a 30 year old male teacher has sex with a 15 year old girl and its rightly seen as a disgrace, an abuse of power and should have very serious consequences. A 30 year old women teacher has sex with a 15 year old boy and whilst she's almost certainly going to lose her job, its much more likely to be seen as 'every school boys fantasy'. There are also instances whereby women use sex to their advantage too, and may misrepresent their own intentions to get the outcomes they need. Much less likely to result in physical and mental harm, clearly, but I think the whole picture is much more abstract than the narrative being played out by the media. I've been brought up to be respectful to women (and men) and I have a modestly traditional view of the role I play as a husband and father. A part of that role is to be protective of my wife and daughters. I think its a natural instinct. By way of an example, if I'm in a public place and I see someone acting in a way that looks to be threatening or offensive to my wife, I'd step in and make sure she was physically protected. If the roles were reversed, I wouldn't expect the same. I'm a 6'1, 15 stone bloke who spends a fair amount of time in the gym. My wife is 5'6 and I won't say her weight but she's lighter than me! Now, I THINK modern culture and society rules mean I'm reinforcing gender stereotypes by acting in that way, because women don't need protecting by men, so some might see me assuming the role of protector to be a sign of 'toxic masculinity'. I don't care - I'm 100% of the belief I'm in the right.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 16:04:03 GMT
Post by Neshead on Mar 16, 2021 16:04:03 GMT
Prosecuting rape will always be hard, unless there is violence- he said she consented, she said she didn't, or says she was so drunk she can't remember anything, who do you believe? Ched Evans proved that much- the first jury believed the victim and he spent hundreds of thousands of pounds throwing the kitchen sink at it until he eventually got the decision overturned. The reasons for it stunk in my opinion, sexual history shouldn't be brought up in rape cases, but we are where we are. He was "exonerated", and even if you think he didn't rape her, nobody seems to care about just how much of a cunt he was to leave her there passed out in a hotel room. And I'd agree that being a cunt shouldn't be illegal, but the attitude now seems to be that if it's not illegal it's absolutely fine. But the law is only a small part of what is acceptable and what is not. Look at Max Clifford, when he was pressuring 16 year old girls to have sex with him in exchange for promises of stardom he wasn't doing anything illegal, but everyone just laughed about it and didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it. You see the same with Trump and Clinton in the US. It was only when he did it to 14 year olds that people seemed to give a shit. Adam Johnson's victim was 14/15, if she'd been a year older nobody would have given a toss either, footballers eh. No easy answers, absolutely, especially as we know there are plenty of young women who'd love to shag a footballer- and good luck to them. But a good starting point would be to make Johnson or Robinson's sort of predatory behaviour socially unacceptable regardless of the age of the girl. To go back to rape cases, they're hard to prosecute without violence. But I'm sorry, men *do* know when a woman is consenting and when she isn't. They just know that it's unlikely that a lack of consent can be proven. I'm not talking about the negotiations, for want of a better word, we all have in marriages. If a wife says she's really really not in the mood and a husband goes and does it anyway, there's no way you'd ever get to prosecute that but it's clearly not acceptable. Am i missing the point here but where is the behaviour of Adam Johnson or Tyrell Robinson found acceptable. I bet there isn't a single police officer in this country that isn't appalled at what happened to Sarah Everard but some of the crap levelled at them because a ploice officer did is laughable. I've even read where the blame of rapists lies with the innocent who choose to stay silent.
|
|
|
Corona
Mar 16, 2021 16:08:44 GMT
Post by bantam147 on Mar 16, 2021 16:08:44 GMT
Prosecuting rape will always be hard, unless there is violence- he said she consented, she said she didn't, or says she was so drunk she can't remember anything, who do you believe? Ched Evans proved that much- the first jury believed the victim and he spent hundreds of thousands of pounds throwing the kitchen sink at it until he eventually got the decision overturned. The reasons for it stunk in my opinion, sexual history shouldn't be brought up in rape cases, but we are where we are. He was "exonerated", and even if you think he didn't rape her, nobody seems to care about just how much of a cunt he was to leave her there passed out in a hotel room. And I'd agree that being a cunt shouldn't be illegal, but the attitude now seems to be that if it's not illegal it's absolutely fine. But the law is only a small part of what is acceptable and what is not. Look at Max Clifford, when he was pressuring 16 year old girls to have sex with him in exchange for promises of stardom he wasn't doing anything illegal, but everyone just laughed about it and didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with it. You see the same with Trump and Clinton in the US. It was only when he did it to 14 year olds that people seemed to give a shit. Adam Johnson's victim was 14/15, if she'd been a year older nobody would have given a toss either, footballers eh. No easy answers, absolutely, especially as we know there are plenty of young women who'd love to shag a footballer- and good luck to them. But a good starting point would be to make Johnson or Robinson's sort of predatory behaviour socially unacceptable regardless of the age of the girl. To go back to rape cases, they're hard to prosecute without violence. But I'm sorry, men *do* know when a woman is consenting and when she isn't. They just know that it's unlikely that a lack of consent can be proven. I'm not talking about the negotiations, for want of a better word, we all have in marriages. If a wife says she's really really not in the mood and a husband goes and does it anyway, there's no way you'd ever get to prosecute that but it's clearly not acceptable. Am i missing the point here but where is the behaviour of Adam Johnson or Tyrell Robinson found acceptable. I bet there isn't a single police officer in this country that isn't appalled at what happened to Sarah Everard but some of the crap levelled at them because a ploice officer did is laughable. I've even read where the blame of rapists lies with the innocent who choose to stay silent. Silence is violence. And it isn't found acceptable, by any sane or reasonable person. There's a reason why sex offenders often have to be isolated from other criminals in prison and why they're seen as pariah's when they rejoin society.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Mar 16, 2021 16:28:00 GMT
Am i missing the point here but where is the behaviour of Adam Johnson or Tyrell Robinson found acceptable. I bet there isn't a single police officer in this country that isn't appalled at what happened to Sarah Everard but some of the crap levelled at them because a ploice officer did is laughable. I've even read where the blame of rapists lies with the innocent who choose to stay silent. Silence is violence. And it isn't found acceptable, by any sane or reasonable person. There's a reason why sex offenders often have to be isolated from other criminals in prison and why they're seen as pariah's when they rejoin society. I'm not sure the women protesting know how to change this other than just ask the police to 'do more'. How exactly? How can we change the laws that are there to protect women? There sin't a simple solution to this, unless you are prepared to change the way whole countries and religions see the role of women in their respective societies.
|
|