Jump to content

Sarah Everard


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, dorlomin said:

1782547411_groupidentity.png.65b221c98198fce253f07747ad8ae204.png

Thus  #NotAllMen   #CurfewForMen etc.

"I am furious that people behave in a predictable way when a highly charged issue is being polarised". 

Henri Tajfel an interesting choice to cite given he sexually harassed women regularly throughout his career. But nice cartoon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheJTS98 said:

I've seen some screenshots of objections to this on a few groups. It seems most people criticising her are having a go at her for saying things she didn't actually say.

From reading what she said, her main points seem to be

- people should be mindful of their surroundings when out and about

- she wouldn't feel totally comfortable walking home alone at night

- women being abducted and murdered is rare

- it's maybe not healthy to view all men as dangerous and she views this as excessive fear-mongering

I'm not sure how much of that a reasonable person could be outraged by. But, like I said, much of the criticism I've seen of her seems to read almost as if people are replying to things she didn't write.

It's a tiresome thing to see people so wound up about some pretty bland views. Of course, the Twitter algorithm is designed to show people things they like, so many people will be getting a wall of post after post confirming their outrage to be justified. That's how it works. Twitter is designed to do this. It's poison.

What she said is really nothing of note whatsoever. She'll take absolute dug's abuse though, from people who think themselves to be virtuous. Because of some completely nothing opinions that are well within the mainstream.

I read what she wrote. 

No one could object to what she said context free. The context is she putting up straw men. 

No one could object to #alllivesmatter if you live under a rock and pop out once a century 

No one is seriously saying all men are bad. People are saying men have a responsibility to be better and challenge their pals to be better and she is literally giving it #notallmen 

I don't know where folk like you get off criticising people for wanting to appear virtuous when you pull the exact same act but use appearing reasonable, above the fray and able to cut through the noise to flatter yourself you are better than other people 

 

Edited by invergowrie arab
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find it all that shocking if I'm honest. 

If you'd asked me a fortnight ago about whether or not I thought serving police officers were either more or less likely to commit offences than the public at large, I'd have said I'd expect rates to be roughly the same, or possibly slightly higher in serving officers than the public.

The reasons for that I can't quite explain, but I'd suggest first of all that things like age, and having a dangerous/stressful job are a factor, working hours and length of working week, knowledge of the law, and presumably an apparent belief they have the knowledge and understanding to defeat it, risk-taking due to an increased sense of invulnerability, possibly being familiar with criminals and criminality, spending time in areas with higher than average rates of crime, having access to vulnerable people, possibly having more ready access to weapons, drugs, proceeds of crime, cash, stolen goods, etc etc

In short, there's no way I'd have ever imagined serving officers would offend at lower rates than the general population, and I certainly never would have suggested they are anything remotely close to being whiter than white.

Look at the way officers carry on in other parts of the world. We are a bit less lawless and gun-crazed than certain other places, but I don't see why the law would be a corrupting thing there, and yet not in the UK

Edited by Boo Khaki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I don't find it all that shocking if I'm honest. 

If you'd asked me a fortnight ago about whether or not I thought serving police officers were either more or less likely to commit offences than the public at large, I'd have said I'd expect rates to be roughly the same, or possibly slightly higher in serving officers than the public.

The reasons for that I can't quite explain, but I'd suggest first of all that things like age, and having a dangerous/stressful job are a factor, working hours and length of working week, knowledge of the law, and presumably an apparent belief they have the knowledge and understanding to defeat it, risk-taking due to an increased sense of invulnerability, possibly being familiar with criminals and criminality, spending time in areas with higher than average rates of crime, having access to vulnerable people, possibly having more ready access to weapons, drugs, proceeds of crime, cash, stolen goods, etc etc

In short, there's no way I'd have ever imagined serving officers would offend at lower rates than the general population, and I certainly never would have suggested they are anything remotely close to being whiter than white.

Look at the way officers carry on in other parts of the world. We are a bit less lawless and gun-crazed than certain other places, but I don't see why the law would be a corrupting thing there, and yet not in the UK

Some of this I agree with and some not so much.  

I suppose many of us would still like to think that people chose a profession because they really want to do that work rather than just a job i.e. doctors want to cure people etc etc.  Police probably come into that category, probably naive on our part though.  That said, the fact that the suspect in this case was a police officer and that his occupation was a shock and headline making shows that most have a particular image of how police are.

Also, on the subject of police in other countries - in all too many places the ease of being able to slip into the criminal side of things is the reason many sign up.  I don' think that's the case in the UK.  In some places salaries are so low which a) drives police into crime and b) recognises that income is being supplement through crime/corruption.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

I don't find it all that shocking if I'm honest. 

If you'd asked me a fortnight ago about whether or not I thought serving police officers were either more or less likely to commit offences than the public at large, I'd have said I'd expect rates to be roughly the same, or possibly slightly higher in serving officers than the public.

The reasons for that I can't quite explain, but I'd suggest first of all that things like age, and having a dangerous/stressful job are a factor, working hours and length of working week, knowledge of the law, and presumably an apparent belief they have the knowledge and understanding to defeat it, risk-taking due to an increased sense of invulnerability, possibly being familiar with criminals and criminality, spending time in areas with higher than average rates of crime, having access to vulnerable people, possibly having more ready access to weapons, drugs, proceeds of crime, cash, stolen goods, etc etc

In short, there's no way I'd have ever imagined serving officers would offend at lower rates than the general population, and I certainly never would have suggested they are anything remotely close to being whiter than white.

Look at the way officers carry on in other parts of the world. We are a bit less lawless and gun-crazed than certain other places, but I don't see why the law would be a corrupting thing there, and yet not in the UK

The police will, proportionately, the same number of duds and wrong 'uns as others. Screening and security checks won't catch all the people you'd rather not employ and enhancing those would cost a fortune.

How often, at a new intake, do we look at a group of new staff and think, "Aye, those are the people to take us forward" ?

Edited by Sergeant Wilson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/03/2021 at 17:18, Honest_Man#1 said:

When I was learning to drive, quite often I’d do lessons at lunch time. The instructor was a 60s age guy, and on several occasions made some very creepy comments when driving around the school about the girls.

Being young I just changed the subject and brushed it off as an awkward old guy trying to be ‘cool’ and have ‘lads banter’ with a school age boy, but looking back it’s more likely he was just a genuine old creep who needed his laptop searched.

I just think large swathes of guys are creepy b*****ds in that sort of scenario, get a large group of guys together and creepy language/behaviour will regularly follow at some point.

I've no idea how you stop it other than educating guys from a very young age, unfortunately a large minority have creepy dad's who ain't going to help much on their journey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hk blues said:

I suppose many of us would still like to think that people chose a profession because they really want to do that work rather than just a job i.e. doctors want to cure people etc etc.  Police probably come into that category, probably naive on our part though.

There will be a fair chunk of police officers who want to help people and uphold law and order at all costs.

Unfortunately there are people who join the police to have a bit of power probably similar to health professionals who are serial killers or perverts thankfully the rate of those in the health care system is much lower than nutters in the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/03/2021 at 08:12, 101 said:

No idea. But a camera operated by someone watching 20/50/100 screens they are unlikely to watch the moment you get abducted. As for the people that commit these crimes they know they must know in the balance of probability they will get caught. 

Probably a return to community police officers wandering about would be a start to making people feel safe, but then again these folk have to have trust of the people they serve so can't target young black men for a stop and search every time they fancy.

Ach, no point in joining up then...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think large swathes of guys are creepy b*****ds in that sort of scenario, get a large group of guys together and creepy language/behaviour will regularly follow at some point.
I've no idea how you stop it other than educating guys from a very young age, unfortunately a large minority have creepy dad's who ain't going to help much on their journey. 


I dont think there is necessarily anything wrong with a group of guys talking about stuff like in amongst themselves. It is fairly innocent 9 times out of ten. I would think there are large groups of girls that do the same amongst themselves as well.

The issue is when this turns into actual creepy behaviour towards said female.

Edited to add. I read the initial comment was about schoolgirls which is obviously not innocent!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BFTD said:

Staggering how many folk have been completely whooshed by the point of the #curfewformen hashtag, which is to point out that whenever there's a rapist/murderer of women kicking about, the advice is always for women (the potential victims) to sequester themselves away lest they be molested, while men (the potential criminals) can roam free. It's not something I'd thought about before, but the logic there is a bit fucked-up.

Anyway, I think we've pretty much established that everyone seems to have known a teacher who shagged the pupil(s). Apparently, totally normal behaviour. Can also confirm that, on the days that the sole female PE teacher wasn't in, the girls at my school dreaded the inevitable inspection in the shower room from one of the males. Apparently that shit was going on back when my mum was at school too, and was one of the reasons why she refused (and was allowed not) to take part in PE.

That couldn't have been allowed, surely?

(I can understand it happening when your mother was at school - any complaints would have been laughed/fobbed off as in sexual abuse allegations - but I'd like to think standards would have improved. Obviously not.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

That couldn't have been allowed, surely?

(I can understand it happening when your mother was at school - any complaints would have been laughed/fobbed off as in sexual abuse allegations - but I'd like to think standards would have improved. Obviously not.)

Never a problem in my days - we didn't have any showers at my school.  Come to think of it we must have been a bit ripe after PE class so that would have deterred any sex pests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hk blues said:

Never a problem in my days - we didn't have any showers at my school.  Come to think of it we must have been a bit ripe after PE class so that would have deterred any sex pests.

We had showers at our secondary school, but I can't remember if we used them after PE or just after swimming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said:

We had showers at our secondary school, but I can't remember if we used them after PE or just after swimming.

Swimming pool - the only time we came close to a swimming  pool was when it rained and the toilers flooded (they were outside and had no roof).

The happiest days of our life right enough!  (Actually they were - I loved school)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...