FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Men or bears?
Men or bears?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Who's politically behind this?" Have a guess. 😃 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What pitfalls could there be? " The potential for unregulated / no background checks before hand. Cover those bases and it’s got legs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 I laughed when I read that.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Protect them from what? is crime against women so high in the UK that we need a special squad of neighbours to protect women?" Men are nearly 64% more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. Almost 1 in 50 people who are Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British have been victims of violent crime. Bisexual people are twice as likely to be victims than straight people. However, women are more likely to be victims of serious violence at the hands of a partner, ex partner, or someone they know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this." Why is it about men protecting women though? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bit more context...... ".. It’s actually part of our neighbourly duty to protect our own. And the situation has reached such grave, serious levels that law-abiding citizens, mums, dads, brothers, uncles, are furious about what is going on and the significant preponderance of sexual catcalling, harassment, leering, sneering, jeering, and sexual assaults and ra@pes that are taking place, coincidentally, near a number of these asylum-seeker hotels. That is the harsh reality. "" Did this concerned citizen give figures to back his claims? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bit more context...... ".. It’s actually part of our neighbourly duty to protect our own. And the situation has reached such grave, serious levels that law-abiding citizens, mums, dads, brothers, uncles, are furious about what is going on and the significant preponderance of sexual catcalling, harassment, leering, sneering, jeering, and sexual assaults and ra@pes that are taking place, coincidentally, near a number of these asylum-seeker hotels. That is the harsh reality. " Did this concerned citizen give figures to back his claims? " Nope. When pressed, could not produce any evidence. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bit more context...... ".. It’s actually part of our neighbourly duty to protect our own. And the situation has reached such grave, serious levels that law-abiding citizens, mums, dads, brothers, uncles, are furious about what is going on and the significant preponderance of sexual catcalling, harassment, leering, sneering, jeering, and sexual assaults and ra@pes that are taking place, coincidentally, near a number of these asylum-seeker hotels. That is the harsh reality. " Did this concerned citizen give figures to back his claims? Nope. When pressed, could not produce any evidence. " Hmm. It's almost as if by promoting fear they can divide the population and make women afraid thereby bringing out the desire of *some* men to mount their chargers and swagger about. Women are far easier to control if they're afraid and men are far easier to control if they have a perceived enemy. I really do despair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry, it's not really about that hypothetical situation. However. Someone has suggested that to keep our women safe, there should be a 'neighbourhood watch' style system set up of men patrolling the streets to protect the women of the UK. Is this a good idea? What pitfalls could there be? " When they say our women, is that like property that belongs to them...?.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? " Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas." Maybe educate boys and men that no means no. That women do not need protection when men behave appropriately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas." If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. Maybe educate boys and men that no means no. That women do not need protection when men behave appropriately. " Why or how would men from one family go and educate men from others in the country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men " I don't know which statistics you mean here. Number of sexual assaults in the country has been growing up year over year while number of prosecutions of sexual assaults has been going down year over year. So it's natural for people to feel unsafe. As for men protecting women, that's how it has always been. I don't understand what's so strange about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men I don't know which statistics you mean here. Number of sexual assaults in the country has been growing up year over year while number of prosecutions of sexual assaults has been going down year over year. So it's natural for people to feel unsafe. As for men protecting women, that's how it has always been. I don't understand what's so strange about it. " The statistics here that the op quoted up thread 'Men are nearly 64% more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. Almost 1 in 50 people who are Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British have been victims of violent crime. Bisexual people are twice as likely to be victims than straight people. However, women are more likely to be victims of serious violence at the hands of a partner, ex partner, or someone they know. ' There's nothing strange about men protecting women but there is something very strange about the implication that *only* men can protect women from other men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry, it's not really about that hypothetical situation. However. Someone has suggested that to keep our women safe, there should be a 'neighbourhood watch' style system set up of men patrolling the streets to protect the women of the UK. Is this a good idea? What pitfalls could there be? " Not sure if this was already asked? Who is this someone who is suggesting this, and what is it that they are being protected from? There was a thread yesterday on Spain asking for help with far more detail that went off on a tangents tangent, a bit more detail here might help  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry, it's not really about that hypothetical situation. However. Someone has suggested that to keep our women safe, there should be a 'neighbourhood watch' style system set up of men patrolling the streets to protect the women of the UK. Is this a good idea? What pitfalls could there be? Not sure if this was already asked? Who is this someone who is suggesting this, and what is it that they are being protected from? There was a thread yesterday on Spain asking for help with far more detail that went off on a tangents tangent, a bit more detail here might help "Richard Tice has suggested it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men I don't know which statistics you mean here. Number of sexual assaults in the country has been growing up year over year while number of prosecutions of sexual assaults has been going down year over year. So it's natural for people to feel unsafe. As for men protecting women, that's how it has always been. I don't understand what's so strange about it. The statistics here that the op quoted up thread 'Men are nearly 64% more likely to be victims of violent crime than women. Almost 1 in 50 people who are Black, African, Caribbean, or Black British have been victims of violent crime. Bisexual people are twice as likely to be victims than straight people. " But these kinds of violent crime hasn't increased year over year from what I know, unlike sexual assaults. " However, women are more likely to be victims of serious violence at the hands of a partner, ex partner, or someone they know. ' " Domestic abuse cases, yes. R&pes which have been solved, yes. But there are numerous sexual assault cases which aren't r@pes and numerous r@pe cases which aren't solved. Only 2.6% or sexual assault cases even lead to charge. Not to mention that many such cases go unreported. The rest of the community cannot solve domestic violence. What can they do? Watch inside everyone's homes with a camera? Sexual assaults in public on the other hand can be tackled by community policing. Not that I condone it, but this is the thinking behind this behaviour. " There's nothing strange about men protecting women but there is something very strange about the implication that *only* men can protect women from other men. " Men are on average physically stronger. It's a fact. If it were to me, I would allow people to carry pepper spray for self defense along with a hefty charge for the people misusing it without need for a self defense. But that's a whole different argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surrey Police's 'Jog On' initiative has resulted in 18 arrests including sexual assault and theft. An initiative that was implemented because of mens abhorrent behaviour towards women. Like I said, women/girls don't need protection if men/boys behave appropriately. " How do you make men/boys behave appropriately? The state has been taking away responsibility from parents for a long time now. As always, the state keeps failing miserably at it. Most kids don't have to face any consequences to their actions. You either become a police state like Singapore where the consequences of such violence are huge or confer more responsibility on parents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. Maybe educate boys and men that no means no. That women do not need protection when men behave appropriately. " Where would this education take place? It’s a good idea in principle but if it were only done in schools it’s gonna take quite a while to filter through into the adult population. And the people who need it probably feel they don’t Also the problem needs more study as to what causes some men to think certain behaviour is acceptable that the overwhelming majority don’t. But that’s not easy because of the way society as a whole treats these people. I watched a program a few years ago that was trying to do this with people (predominantly male but not always) who have a sexual attraction to children. They spoke to one man who classed himself as a “non offending pedo”. He was voluntarily taking drugs to chemically castrate himself so he had zero sexual urges. I don’t remember a lot about it but one of the psychologists he had seen described a “mental switch” which for 99.99% of heterosexual men is set to finding adult women sexually attractive and pre puberty girls not sexually attractive. For reasons unknown his was set the opposite way and had been for as long as he could remember. He knew this was morally wrong which is why he came forward voluntarily for treatment. His identity was hidden for obvious reasons but he was about 30ish if I remember and was still a virgin and expected to die a virgin. If more can be understood as to why some men beat women, why some think forcing themselves on a women is ok, and why they have a sexual interest in children, then perhaps we can make some real headway. The problem with the child sex offenders of course is in coming forward they would be taking a great risks to their personal safety. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Surrey Police's 'Jog On' initiative has resulted in 18 arrests including sexual assault and theft. An initiative that was implemented because of mens abhorrent behaviour towards women. Like I said, women/girls don't need protection if men/boys behave appropriately. How do you make men/boys behave appropriately? The state has been taking away responsibility from parents for a long time now. As always, the state keeps failing miserably at it. Most kids don't have to face any consequences to their actions. You either become a police state like Singapore where the consequences of such violence are huge or confer more responsibility on parents." Lots of ways. Parents Education system Peer pressure Emotional support for men and boys I'm sure there are many more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Parents " How does it work in practice? Have training sessions for all parents? " Education system " Do you think the education system already doesn't cover this? " Peer pressure " Again, how do you get people to peer pressure their friends when they are talking bad about women? " Emotional support for men and boys " This might be possible. But most men and boys who resort to these things don't look for emotional support generally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️" You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility." My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's that saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." This is categorically wrong. Why would I be part of the problem of some guy I have never met committing sexual assault on some woman I have never met in a town I have never visited? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men I don't know which statistics you mean here. Number of sexual assaults in the country has been growing up year over year while number of prosecutions of sexual assaults has been going down year over year. So it's natural for people to feel unsafe. As for men protecting women, that's how it has always been. I don't understand what's so strange about it. " Are you talking police statistics or CSEW statistics?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suppose groups of bears patrolling would solve quite a lot of problems but the dustbins wouldn't be safe "ROFL  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's that saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. This is categorically wrong. Why would I be part of the problem of some guy I have never met committing sexual assault on some woman I have never met in a town I have never visited?" Next time you hear a male friend, a male colleague, a male acquaintance belittle a woman, any woman, challenge what they say. Let them know it's not OK to speak about women like that, and certainly not for them to act on anything they say. That's how you become part of the solution And don't forget to sign a pledge on White Ribbon Day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry, it's not really about that hypothetical situation. However. Someone has suggested that to keep our women safe, there should be a 'neighbourhood watch' style system set up of men patrolling the streets to protect the women of the UK. Is this a good idea? What pitfalls could there be? Not sure if this was already asked? Who is this someone who is suggesting this, and what is it that they are being protected from? There was a thread yesterday on Spain asking for help with far more detail that went off on a tangents tangent, a bit more detail here might help
Richard Tice has suggested it"Thanks, I have just listened to what he had to say. To be honest I felt it was a rather mixed message. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's that saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. This is categorically wrong. Why would I be part of the problem of some guy I have never met committing sexual assault on some woman I have never met in a town I have never visited? Next time you hear a male friend, a male colleague, a male acquaintance belittle a woman, any woman, challenge what they say. Let them know it's not OK to speak about women like that, and certainly not for them to act on anything they say. That's how you become part of the solution And don't forget to sign a pledge on White Ribbon Day. "Does that also apply to “asylum seekers” or is it best to keep quiet about them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Does that also apply to “asylum seekers” or is it best to keep quiet about them?" You can start a separate thread for that if you like, knock yourself out! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? " Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's that saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. This is categorically wrong. Why would I be part of the problem of some guy I have never met committing sexual assault on some woman I have never met in a town I have never visited? Next time you hear a male friend, a male colleague, a male acquaintance belittle a woman, any woman, challenge what they say. Let them know it's not OK to speak about women like that, and certainly not for them to act on anything they say. " I would do that. But that's not going to stop some guy who I have never met from committing a crime. There are tens of millions of people in the country. By your argument, you are part of the problem for every crime that happens in the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men I don't know which statistics you mean here. Number of sexual assaults in the country has been growing up year over year while number of prosecutions of sexual assaults has been going down year over year. So it's natural for people to feel unsafe. As for men protecting women, that's how it has always been. I don't understand what's so strange about it. " Are you talking police statistics or CSEW statistics?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Whether you like it or not, this is where things will end up if people lose trust in police. Given the lack of funding for the police, some poor decision making by the police and general loss of social trust, I am not surprised that people are already talking about this. Why is it about men protecting women though? Probably because there has been lots of media focus on sexual assaults. If there is more coverage for home break-ins, we will have more communities hiring guards or just do community policing in their areas. If you check the statistics given above they wouldn't be protecting women where the majority of assaults take place. It still doesn't explain why it has to be groups of men protecting women from other men I don't know which statistics you mean here. Number of sexual assaults in the country has been growing up year over year while number of prosecutions of sexual assaults has been going down year over year. So it's natural for people to feel unsafe. As for men protecting women, that's how it has always been. I don't understand what's so strange about it. Are you talking police statistics or CSEW statistics?? " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56365412.amp | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. " How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? " Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting." Will you behave, the parents I know worry endlessly about their kids phone consumption. So if I or you were to commit a crime it's the parents fault? You have no agency over your own actions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. Will you behave, the parents I know worry endlessly about their kids phone consumption. So if I or you were to commit a crime it's the parents fault? You have no agency over your own actions?" I said kids. Not adults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting." I can't agree with this at all. Where are you getting this information? Of course there are bad parents, that's nothing new but do you honestly believe that 'many parents' just give their kids a smart phone and leave them to it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. Will you behave, the parents I know worry endlessly about their kids phone consumption. So if I or you were to commit a crime it's the parents fault? You have no agency over your own actions? I said kids. Not adults." They have brains too, they do have agency. The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting." You could have just said 'it's not' And I'm fraid I'm going to have to address your data. The ONS, which is the source of the data in the BBC link you so kindly provided, collate data from the CSEW and Police. Crucial differences. CSEW is self reported information via a survey, and their sexual assaults data includes prostitution and pornography, exploitation, indecent exposure and others. Police data is according to the legal definition of sexual assault, which is unwanted sexual touching, or attempt. Additionally, there is no specific domestic abuse crime, so if a partner or ex partner tries to touch the other without consent, it's a sexual offence recorded as such and therefore included in the figures for all sexual assaults. Here's another dent in the data you like to offer. Many women are repeat victims of sexual assault by the same partner. Over and over again. So, the data provides the number of assaults committed, but not the number of victims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. I can't agree with this at all. Where are you getting this information? Of course there are bad parents, that's nothing new but do you honestly believe that 'many parents' just give their kids a smart phone and leave them to it? " I live in a neighbourhood where I see lots of teens hanging out in a park late at night smoking stuff. You saw how many teens turned up in Oxford street to rob a store over a TikTok campaign? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. Will you behave, the parents I know worry endlessly about their kids phone consumption. So if I or you were to commit a crime it's the parents fault? You have no agency over your own actions? I said kids. Not adults. They have brains too, they do have agency. The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents?" Yes I blame the parents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. Will you behave, the parents I know worry endlessly about their kids phone consumption. So if I or you were to commit a crime it's the parents fault? You have no agency over your own actions? I said kids. Not adults. They have brains too, they do have agency. The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. " All parents? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" CSEW is self reported information via a survey, and their sexual assaults data includes prostitution and pornography, exploitation, indecent exposure and others. " Number of people who do this has increased. Isn't that bad? " Additionally, there is no specific domestic abuse crime, so if a partner or ex partner tries to touch the other without consent, it's a sexual offence recorded as such and therefore included in the figures for all sexual assaults. " There is an overlap between sexual assault and domestic abuse. But they are not the same. " Many women are repeat victims of sexual assault by the same partner. Over and over again. So, the data provides the number of assaults committed, but not the number of victims. " What percentage? "Many" is such a vague term. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I never felt that the state took responsibility away from us as parents. Every time someone suggests teaching boys to be better men someone always says it would never work because of 'reasons'. It is in fact really simple. Men show younger men and boys by example that women are your equal in every way and deserve respect. Women do not tolerate poor behaviour and disrespect from men. 🤷♀️ You want men in the society to behave in a certain way. What driving force are you going to use to make men do that? All the "solutions" I am seeing in this thread about how different people must take responsibility but no mention of how you can get them to take responsibility. My point is that if the men and women who understand that change is needed start to speak out and set examples then it will slowly filter down. We have had as campaigns about seat belts, smoking, sugar, healthy eating. What's stopping an ad campaign showing men speaking up when their mates start with their nonsense or women telling men their behaviour is inappropriate? Do you advocate doing nothing? Using ads campaign is a reasonable idea that may help a little bit but not much. Campaigns for smoking, eating, etc works because it's about one's own health and body, not something that affects others. London tube stations have been running anti-harrassment campaigns for a long time. Hasn't had any impact. Some options I would suggest: - Ban smartphones for kids - Parents face consequences if kids commit crime There is a general philosophical problem that the west is struggling to grapple with. After successfully killing off religion and patriotism, there is no moral foundation to raise people on. This existential crisis cannot be solved that easily. How is banning smartphones or having parents facing consequences for their children's crimes going to address predominantly grown men from assaulting women today? Most of people's characters are formulated when they are young . You can "educate" all you want in the schools. If they are going home to watch Andrew Tate videos, your education system is of no use. For many parents today, parenting is about giving the kids smartphones and minding their own business. If they know that they will face consequences if the kids indulge in violent crime, they will at least do the bare minimum parenting. Will you behave, the parents I know worry endlessly about their kids phone consumption. So if I or you were to commit a crime it's the parents fault? You have no agency over your own actions? I said kids. Not adults. They have brains too, they do have agency. The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. All parents? " Parents of kids who committed the crime | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although I do think that access to the net should be restricted for anyone under 16 via parental controls. However any time I suggest this people tell me it'll never work 🤷♀️" Isn't that what this new on-line rule is meant to do? Well, not the whole Internet but harmful content from children? And guess who's for allowing kids to see anything.....the Putin appologist and race bater Nige | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although I do think that access to the net should be restricted for anyone under 16 via parental controls. However any time I suggest this people tell me it'll never work 🤷♀️ Isn't that what this new on-line rule is meant to do? Well, not the whole Internet but harmful content from children? And guess who's for allowing kids to see anything.....the Putin appologist and race bater Nige " Some websites doing age check is the most idiotic way to solve the problem. Why can't they just ban smartphones for kids if they care about kids? Because the goal was not to protect the kids but to increase surveillance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although I do think that access to the net should be restricted for anyone under 16 via parental controls. However any time I suggest this people tell me it'll never work 🤷♀️ Isn't that what this new on-line rule is meant to do? Well, not the whole Internet but harmful content from children? And guess who's for allowing kids to see anything.....the Putin appologist and race bater Nige " Yep but loads of people have argued against it because it infringes their freedoms 🤷♀️. I do think that some parents could go further in checking what their kids are looking at too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" CSEW is self reported information via a survey, and their sexual assaults data includes prostitution and pornography, exploitation, indecent exposure and others. Number of people who do this has increased. Isn't that bad? Additionally, there is no specific domestic abuse crime, so if a partner or ex partner tries to touch the other without consent, it's a sexual offence recorded as such and therefore included in the figures for all sexual assaults. There is an overlap between sexual assault and domestic abuse. But they are not the same. Many women are repeat victims of sexual assault by the same partner. Over and over again. So, the data provides the number of assaults committed, but not the number of victims. What percentage? "Many" is such a vague term." Oh my! Of course all if those things are bad, and they are mostly committed by men - you know this from your statistics. Which is why men need to do better. They can't claim to be protecting the women, when they are causing the harm in the first place! I have not said that they are the same, I'm saying that we have no idea how many of the sexual assaults were committed by partners or ex partners. That data is not available. Nor is there any data on numbers of repeat victims. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although I do think that access to the net should be restricted for anyone under 16 via parental controls. However any time I suggest this people tell me it'll never work 🤷♀️ Isn't that what this new on-line rule is meant to do? Well, not the whole Internet but harmful content from children? And guess who's for allowing kids to see anything.....the Putin appologist and race bater Nige Some websites doing age check is the most idiotic way to solve the problem. Why can't they just ban smartphones for kids if they care about kids? Because the goal was not to protect the kids but to increase surveillance." How and whoa policing that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. " Their parents, specifically? How much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case? You were 5 when it happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" CSEW is self reported information via a survey, and their sexual assaults data includes prostitution and pornography, exploitation, indecent exposure and others. Number of people who do this has increased. Isn't that bad? Additionally, there is no specific domestic abuse crime, so if a partner or ex partner tries to touch the other without consent, it's a sexual offence recorded as such and therefore included in the figures for all sexual assaults. There is an overlap between sexual assault and domestic abuse. But they are not the same. Many women are repeat victims of sexual assault by the same partner. Over and over again. So, the data provides the number of assaults committed, but not the number of victims. What percentage? "Many" is such a vague term. Oh my! Of course all if those things are bad, and they are mostly committed by men - you know this from your statistics. Which is why men need to do better. They can't claim to be protecting the women, when they are causing the harm in the first place! " No one said they shouldn't. I have asked for ideas and you haven't come up with a single workable one. " I have not said that they are the same, I'm saying that we have no idea how many of the sexual assaults were committed by partners or ex partners. That data is not available. " Yes it's not available. No matter what, do you think it's wrong to protect women from strangers? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. Their parents, specifically? How much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case? " If 10 year olds can do such a brutal act, the parents or guardians whoever was looking after them failed big time. " You were 5 when it happened. " What kind of lame logic is this? Most people today weren't alive during the world wars. Doesn't stop us from having opinions on it, does it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. Their parents, specifically? How much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case? If 10 year olds can do such a brutal act, the parents or guardians whoever was looking after them failed big time. You were 5 when it happened. What kind of lame logic is this? Most people today weren't alive during the world wars. Doesn't stop us from having opinions on it, does it?" The question was 'how much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case?' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. Their parents, specifically? How much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case? If 10 year olds can do such a brutal act, the parents or guardians whoever was looking after them failed big time. You were 5 when it happened. What kind of lame logic is this? Most people today weren't alive during the world wars. Doesn't stop us from having opinions on it, does it? The question was 'how much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case?'" I have read about it online. Is there anything information that only people who were born before that know? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". The kids who killed James Bulger didn't have phones, you blame their parents? Yes I blame the parents. Their parents, specifically? How much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case? If 10 year olds can do such a brutal act, the parents or guardians whoever was looking after them failed big time. You were 5 when it happened. What kind of lame logic is this? Most people today weren't alive during the world wars. Doesn't stop us from having opinions on it, does it? The question was 'how much do you know about the Jamie Bulger case?' I have read about it online. Is there anything information that only people who were born before that know?" No idea I just wondered why you didn't answer the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". No one said they shouldn't. I have asked for ideas and you haven't come up with a single workable one. " I have, but you disagree with them. There has been a campaign, a long time ago now, called Dear Daddy. It's still available on YouTube. Plus White Ribbon Day. Every year. Or, there is that thing called decency. People owning their opinions and actions and being, oh, I don't know, decent? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the OP and the direction it was taken has been allowed some poetic license, from the views of Richard Tice. Just saying, after reading the back and forth." I appreciate that, but I think all the comments have been useful. There is so much more to unpick from Mr Tice's interview and some of the comments here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". No one said they shouldn't. I have asked for ideas and you haven't come up with a single workable one. I have, but you disagree with them. There has been a campaign, a long time ago now, called Dear Daddy. It's still available on YouTube. " Great! Did that work? Did that reduce the number of sexual assaults? " Or, there is that thing called decency. People owning their opinions and actions and being, oh, I don't know, decent? " Damn! How did I forget that? If only those criminals knew that thing called decency. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". No one said they shouldn't. I have asked for ideas and you haven't come up with a single workable one. I have, but you disagree with them. There has been a campaign, a long time ago now, called Dear Daddy. It's still available on YouTube. Great! Did that work? Did that reduce the number of sexual assaults? Or, there is that thing called decency. People owning their opinions and actions and being, oh, I don't know, decent? Damn! How did I forget that? If only those criminals knew that thing called decency." You do realise that the men who commit violent assaults against women, especially in an intimate relationships, actually think that what they do is normal and OK? We have a thing called patriarchy. Maybe you've heard of it? It's been around for centuries. Women were owned. They were property. They weren't protected by men. And, apparently, still are not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Great! Did that work? Did that reduce the number of sexual assaults? " Try watching it. Then again, there are some people for whom they will not see the relevance. At the end of all of this, men cause more harm to other men and to women. What is the common denominator? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". No one said they shouldn't. I have asked for ideas and you haven't come up with a single workable one. I have, but you disagree with them. There has been a campaign, a long time ago now, called Dear Daddy. It's still available on YouTube. Great! Did that work? Did that reduce the number of sexual assaults? Or, there is that thing called decency. People owning their opinions and actions and being, oh, I don't know, decent? Damn! How did I forget that? If only those criminals knew that thing called decency. You do realise that the men who commit violent assaults against women, especially in an intimate relationships, actually think that what they do is normal and OK? " I know that. I just don't see a solution from you to fix it. " We have a thing called patriarchy. Maybe you've heard of it? It's been around for centuries. Women were owned. They were property. They weren't protected by men. And, apparently, still are not. " And yet here you are in a thread arguing that men from the community protecting the women is a bad thing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Great! Did that work? Did that reduce the number of sexual assaults? Try watching it. Then again, there are some people for whom they will not see the relevance. At the end of all of this, men cause more harm to other men and to women. What is the common denominator? " That men cause most sexual assaults? What's the relevance to the discussion we are having now? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Great! Did that work? Did that reduce the number of sexual assaults? Try watching it. Then again, there are some people for whom they will not see the relevance. At the end of all of this, men cause more harm to other men and to women. What is the common denominator? That men cause most sexual assaults? What's the relevance to the discussion we are having now?" That someone has suggested that men patrolling areas and using the powers of citizens arrest to protect women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" We have a thing called patriarchy. Maybe you've heard of it? It's been around for centuries. Women were owned. They were property. They weren't protected by men. And, apparently, still are not. And yet here you are in a thread arguing that men from the community protecting the women is a bad thing" Which part did you miss? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. " Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? " No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. " Most of us do this anyway right? I always walk a woman home, not because of a certain colour man or a certain religion but because of men!! Men are predatory! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. " He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying." Austerity, May speech telling police they were over reacting springs to mind. However, where you have people, you have disease and crime. Have you tried tackling poverty? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. " Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad." Men are bad!! They are predatory!! Protecting that status is how we are where we are. Saying "all lives matter" became the mantra of the racists to sound inclusive, but what they meant was the status quo matters. Men in society are a problem!!! They abuse their position as a man and if their in a position of power they are more likely to do it!! Non of this correlates to skin colour. Most men are white and most abusers are white. But categorically predatory men are a problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad. Men are bad!! They are predatory!! " Are you bad and predatory? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad. Men are bad!! They are predatory!! Are you bad and predatory?" Are Muslims bad? Are asylum seekers bad? Are immigrants bad? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying." What in your opinion was he saying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad. Men are bad!! They are predatory!! Are you bad and predatory? Are Muslims bad? Are asylum seekers bad? Are immigrants bad?" Some people in every group are bad. How many depends on various factors. You said men are bad and predatory. Are you too? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad." Where have I said men are bad? What I'm saying isn't really the same as saying 'all lives matter ' in the context you're using it or are you reading my mind and inferring my intentions from that...? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I said men are bad? What I'm saying isn't really the same as saying 'all lives matter ' in the context you're using it or are you reading my mind and inferring my intentions from that...?" Sorry I confused you with someone else saying men are bad. You said "No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement." I can apply the same logic when you say "Humans must be protected" and blame you for objecting people protecting women. Intentions are hard to interpret. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I said men are bad? What I'm saying isn't really the same as saying 'all lives matter ' in the context you're using it or are you reading my mind and inferring my intentions from that...? Sorry I confused you with someone else saying men are bad. You said "No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement." I can apply the same logic when you say "Humans must be protected" and blame you for objecting people protecting women. Intentions are hard to interpret." I'm not objecting to people protecting women. I'm objecting to the inference that it is *only* women who need protection and that it's mainly men who need to do it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I said men are bad? What I'm saying isn't really the same as saying 'all lives matter ' in the context you're using it or are you reading my mind and inferring my intentions from that...? Sorry I confused you with someone else saying men are bad. You said "No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement." I can apply the same logic when you say "Humans must be protected" and blame you for objecting people protecting women. Intentions are hard to interpret. I'm not objecting to people protecting women. I'm objecting to the inference that it is *only* women who need protection and that it's mainly men who need to do it. " Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators." Predators who are statistically significantly men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. Predators who are statistically significantly men. " So? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I said men are bad? What I'm saying isn't really the same as saying 'all lives matter ' in the context you're using it or are you reading my mind and inferring my intentions from that...? Sorry I confused you with someone else saying men are bad. You said "No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement." I can apply the same logic when you say "Humans must be protected" and blame you for objecting people protecting women. Intentions are hard to interpret. I'm not objecting to people protecting women. I'm objecting to the inference that it is *only* women who need protection and that it's mainly men who need to do it. Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators." The intent behind what I am saying and the idea I'm responding to are very different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. Predators who are statistically significantly men. So?" Read the original post, listen to the interview with Mr. Tice, then you might, just might, develop an inkling of an idea as to what this thread is about and the relevance of men (not all men!) being predatory, and yet being called on to protect women and children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Where have I said men are bad? What I'm saying isn't really the same as saying 'all lives matter ' in the context you're using it or are you reading my mind and inferring my intentions from that...? Sorry I confused you with someone else saying men are bad. You said "No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement." I can apply the same logic when you say "Humans must be protected" and blame you for objecting people protecting women. Intentions are hard to interpret. I'm not objecting to people protecting women. I'm objecting to the inference that it is *only* women who need protection and that it's mainly men who need to do it. Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. The intent behind what I am saying and the idea I'm responding to are very different. " You are assuming good intent for yourself and bad intent for others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. Predators who are statistically significantly men. So?" So men are predators, they are bad!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. Predators who are statistically significantly men. So? Read the original post, listen to the interview with Mr. Tice, then you might, just might, develop an inkling of an idea as to what this thread is about and the relevance of men (not all men!) being predatory, and yet being called on to protect women and children. " Not all men are predatory. What's wrong with the non-predatory men protecting women? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. Predators who are statistically significantly men. So? Read the original post, listen to the interview with Mr. Tice, then you might, just might, develop an inkling of an idea as to what this thread is about and the relevance of men (not all men!) being predatory, and yet being called on to protect women and children. " The fact you have to say (not all men!) is telling because no one does that whilst tarring, Muslims, immigrants asylum seekers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Again, "Black lives matter" doesn't mean only black lives matter right? The argument there was that black people are more vulnerable in the hands of police. Same with women being more vulnerable in the hands of predators. Predators who are statistically significantly men. So? Read the original post, listen to the interview with Mr. Tice, then you might, just might, develop an inkling of an idea as to what this thread is about and the relevance of men (not all men!) being predatory, and yet being called on to protect women and children. The fact you have to say (not all men!) is telling because no one does that whilst tarring, Muslims, immigrants asylum seekers " I did include that as a tongue in cheek comment. But it's so relevant. It's OK to stereotype some groups, but then get offended when the same is applied to another group. 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes'" Absolutely! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes'" Isn't this just reassuring the people who want to link one bad thing to a load of others? Just because a brown man stole doesn't mean all brown men steal! I don't think this is the point you were trying to make | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes'" We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right?" Yes!! Being wary of men is a good thing! Because statistically they are cunts | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' Isn't this just reassuring the people who want to link one bad thing to a load of others? Just because a brown man stole doesn't mean all brown men steal! I don't think this is the point you were trying to make " To me it's a way of explaining why women are wary of men when wonder why. I wouldn't use it in any other context but I agree it's not really relevant to the thread | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right?" I have been wary of men since I reached a certain age and time and experience has made me more wary . However I do not believe that all men are dangerous and I do not believe that the answer is either me staying at home or patrols of men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. Every argument you made applies for people who say "All lives matter too". You or anyone else for that matter doesn't have the ability to read other people's minds and learn their intentions. Not even with the scientific devices. If you are going to discredit people saying "All lives matter" when someone says "Black lives matter" based on intentions you can't even read, what stops others from discrediting you when you say "Humans must be protected" when people are saying "women must be protected"? People need to have some logical consistency in their ideology. We have been repeatedly told by certain people that judging a large group based on behaviour of few individuals is bad. Then the same people go on to say men are bad. Men are bad!! They are predatory!! Are you bad and predatory? Are Muslims bad? Are asylum seekers bad? Are immigrants bad? Some people in every group are bad. How many depends on various factors. You said men are bad and predatory. Are you too?" Untill you start writing and make your far right mates wright (not all Muslims) (not all immigrants) (not all asylum seekers). No, I will not apologise for saying men are predators they abuse our women at a higher rate than any of the afore mentioned minorities. Men are a problem | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right? Yes!! Being wary of men is a good thing! Because statistically they are cunts " Cool! Let's talk statistics. In Sweden, nearly 2/3rd of sexual assault convicts were immigrants. Almost similar numbers in Finland too. Should women there be wary of immigrants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right? Yes!! Being wary of men is a good thing! Because statistically they are cunts Cool! Let's talk statistics. In Sweden, nearly 2/3rd of sexual assault convicts were immigrants. Almost similar numbers in Finland too. Should women there be wary of immigrants?" Here he goes!! Like clock work!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right? Yes!! Being wary of men is a good thing! Because statistically they are cunts Cool! Let's talk statistics. In Sweden, nearly 2/3rd of sexual assault convicts were immigrants. Almost similar numbers in Finland too. Should women there be wary of immigrants?" Were they all immigrants? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right? Yes!! Being wary of men is a good thing! Because statistically they are cunts Cool! Let's talk statistics. In Sweden, nearly 2/3rd of sexual assault convicts were immigrants. Almost similar numbers in Finland too. Should women there be wary of immigrants?" Or men?? Men are the problem not immigration | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!?" 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"When anyone says 'not all men' I wonder if they would enter a room with 50 snakes, only one of which was poisonous and feel safe if I said 'not all snakes' We make risk based decisions all the time and I don't judge them based on it. Men are statistically more dangerous to women and that according to you justifies being wary of men, is that right? Yes!! Being wary of men is a good thing! Because statistically they are cunts Cool! Let's talk statistics. In Sweden, nearly 2/3rd of sexual assault convicts were immigrants. Almost similar numbers in Finland too. Should women there be wary of immigrants? Were they all immigrants?" 2/3rd were even though immigrants account for a much lower percentage of population. So statistically speaking, it's ok for women in Sweden and Finland to be wary of immigrants right? In Germany, about 48% of gangr&pes were committed by immigrants mostly from the middle eastern countries. So it should be ok for women in Germany to be wary when they see a group of immigrant men right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!? 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. " Sure you can be wary of men. But the statistics also say you should be wary of men from specific countries. Why is it ok to be judgemental based on statistics when it comes to sex but not national origin? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!? 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. Sure you can be wary of men. But the statistics also say you should be wary of men from specific countries. Why is it ok to be judgemental based on statistics when it comes to sex but not national origin?" No it doesn't!! People of ethnic minority are not more likely to commit a specific crime!! Your lying, it's simply men. They are the problem, white men abuse their wives and protest against people seeking safety who happen to be brown | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men"  It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown "Now who's projecting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!? 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. Sure you can be wary of men. But the statistics also say you should be wary of men from specific countries. Why is it ok to be judgemental based on statistics when it comes to sex but not national origin? No it doesn't!! People of ethnic minority are not more likely to commit a specific crime!! Your lying, it's simply men. They are the problem, white men abuse their wives and protest against people seeking safety who happen to be brown " The statistics are available online. You can go look it up. The story is pretty much the same in every European country where they collected these statistics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. What in your opinion was he saying? " It was a real mixed message that exposed Reforms direction. He was touching on neighbourhoods being open to criminality and communities feeling unsafe, he was suggesting the community to come together in the absence of the police to tackle issues and protect children, woman and men, but was clear that meant within the law. He was direct in the idea that men should protect women in society as the gentlemanly thing to do. However that was simply a lead into his real messaging. Which started with an attack on the police for spending their time investigating tweets and online messaging, and migrants at asylum hotels who he said have been jeering, making sexual assaults and the r word of women and children. He was challenged on the misinformation ref the scouts in Wales, it was interesting to hear him not accept that was wrong. There was so much to unpack in this interview that those who are really against Reform and Tice should have had a field day on the content, which is why I'm surprised this hasn't really happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown "Enjoying the sun mate, under a tree up Roath park! The meltdown is in your head | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!? 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. Sure you can be wary of men. But the statistics also say you should be wary of men from specific countries. Why is it ok to be judgemental based on statistics when it comes to sex but not national origin? No it doesn't!! People of ethnic minority are not more likely to commit a specific crime!! Your lying, it's simply men. They are the problem, white men abuse their wives and protest against people seeking safety who happen to be brown The statistics are available online. You can go look it up. The story is pretty much the same in every European country where they collected these statistics. " Publish them, let us see what you are reading. Because theirs nothing I see or actually live with a high diversity of ethnicity proves this right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting? "I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that. If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group? You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. What in your opinion was he saying? It was a real mixed message that exposed Reforms direction. He was touching on neighbourhoods being open to criminality and communities feeling unsafe, he was suggesting the community to come together in the absence of the police to tackle issues and protect children, woman and men, but was clear that meant within the law. He was direct in the idea that men should protect women in society as the gentlemanly thing to do. However that was simply a lead into his real messaging. Which started with an attack on the police for spending their time investigating tweets and online messaging, and migrants at asylum hotels who he said have been jeering, making sexual assaults and the r word of women and children. He was challenged on the misinformation ref the scouts in Wales, it was interesting to hear him not accept that was wrong. There was so much to unpack in this interview that those who are really against Reform and Tice should have had a field day on the content, which is why I'm surprised this hasn't really happened. " It was disturbing for him to mention citizens arrest - the any person power of arrest - as an option, without the greater context of when it can be used. There was so much of what he said that needs to be addressed. How it has flown under the radar this long, I don't know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!? 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. Sure you can be wary of men. But the statistics also say you should be wary of men from specific countries. Why is it ok to be judgemental based on statistics when it comes to sex but not national origin? No it doesn't!! People of ethnic minority are not more likely to commit a specific crime!! Your lying, it's simply men. They are the problem, white men abuse their wives and protest against people seeking safety who happen to be brown The statistics are available online. You can go look it up. The story is pretty much the same in every European country where they collected these statistics. Publish them, let us see what you are reading. Because theirs nothing I see or actually live with a high diversity of ethnicity proves this right " You can check out Ardavan Khoshnood's research paper on Sweden r&pe offenders - a latent class analysis. For Finland, you can search for the article titled " Foreigners more often suspects of offences than Finns" in stat dot fi Website. They have a table that shows statistics specific to sexual assaults. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy."Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime. But hey you then find an interpretation of .... So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"By men though!!? 99% convictions of r@pe in Sweden in the piece I just read were men. Sure you can be wary of men. But the statistics also say you should be wary of men from specific countries. Why is it ok to be judgemental based on statistics when it comes to sex but not national origin? No it doesn't!! People of ethnic minority are not more likely to commit a specific crime!! Your lying, it's simply men. They are the problem, white men abuse their wives and protest against people seeking safety who happen to be brown The statistics are available online. You can go look it up. The story is pretty much the same in every European country where they collected these statistics. Publish them, let us see what you are reading. Because theirs nothing I see or actually live with a high diversity of ethnicity proves this right You can check out Ardavan Khoshnood's research paper on Sweden r&pe offenders - a latent class analysis. For Finland, you can search for the article titled " Foreigners more often suspects of offences than Finns" in stat dot fi Website. They have a table that shows statistics specific to sexual assaults." Your also obsessed by other countries. They don't have the same system's as ours for better or worse. They don't have the same history as us! Britain is a successful country because of its integration and history | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Koshnoods paper does not explore why the figures are disproportionate. Just that the statistics show higher numbers of convicted rapists are immigrants or first generation immigrants. We need to understand the drivers behind it. " Did you want to understand the drivers behind it before saying it's ok for women to be wary of men? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy.
Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime.
But hey you then find an interpretation of ....
So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers "There are statistics available. And I never mentioned anything about race. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy.
Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime.
But hey you then find an interpretation of ....
So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers
There are statistics available. And I never mentioned anything about race. "It's always about race with you! You just don't mention it!! But men, that's what you don't like. Men are pigs, men are predatory, men are the problem!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy.
Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime.
But hey you then find an interpretation of ....
So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers
There are statistics available. And I never mentioned anything about race.
It's always about race with you!
You just don't mention it!!
But men, that's what you don't like.
Men are pigs, men are predatory, men are the problem!!!"Did you just call yourself a pig? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy.
Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime.
But hey you then find an interpretation of ....
So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers
There are statistics available. And I never mentioned anything about race.
It's always about race with you!
You just don't mention it!!
But men, that's what you don't like.
Men are pigs, men are predatory, men are the problem!!!
Did you just call yourself a pig? "I'll say it again! Men are pigs! Men are predators. Are all Muslim a threat to our nation? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy.
Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime.
But hey you then find an interpretation of ....
So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers
There are statistics available. And I never mentioned anything about race.
It's always about race with you!
You just don't mention it!!
But men, that's what you don't like.
Men are pigs, men are predatory, men are the problem!!!
Did you just call yourself a pig?
I'll say it again! Men are pigs! Men are predators.
Are all Muslim a threat to our nation?"Statistically men are overrepresented in crime against women. Statistically, Islamists are overrepresented in being threats against the nation. Not all men are pigs. Not all Muslims are threat to the nation. It's ok to be wary in specific situations with both the groups though because of what the statistics imply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Always men! He can try and twist things about immigration. But the problem is men, no matter what colour or country it's men! The problem is men It's quite enjoyable to watch a nice leftie meltdown
Now who's projecting?
I am not projecting. Left wingers are the most ideologically inconsistent people I have ever met and is the reason why they have become a joke in the modern political discourse. The conversation on this thread is just an example of that.
If statistics can be a justified reason to be judgemental about one group of people, why can't it be a justified reason to be judgement against another group?
You either say that you should never be judgemental about any groups of people. Or you say it's ok to rely on statistics to make these judgements. Picking and choosing only the statistics that aligns with your own ideology is hypocrisy and most people in the country have already seen through this hypocrisy.
Except that's what you've done!! There's no evidence in any country that black or brown people are more likely to commit a crime.
But hey you then find an interpretation of ....
So it's you who moves the goal posts, because you don't like the fact it's men, men are a problem! You project that problem on to immigration, no doubt some of those men will be a problem, the same as your white brothers
There are statistics available. And I never mentioned anything about race.
It's always about race with you!
You just don't mention it!!
But men, that's what you don't like.
Men are pigs, men are predatory, men are the problem!!!
Did you just call yourself a pig?
I'll say it again! Men are pigs! Men are predators.
Are all Muslim a threat to our nation?
Statistically men are overrepresented in crime against women.
Statistically, Islamists are overrepresented in being threats against the nation.
Not all men are pigs. Not all Muslims are threat to the nation.
It's ok to be wary in specific situations with both the groups though because of what the statistics imply."So statistics say men are the people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. What in your opinion was he saying? It was a real mixed message that exposed Reforms direction. He was touching on neighbourhoods being open to criminality and communities feeling unsafe, he was suggesting the community to come together in the absence of the police to tackle issues and protect children, woman and men, but was clear that meant within the law. He was direct in the idea that men should protect women in society as the gentlemanly thing to do. However that was simply a lead into his real messaging. Which started with an attack on the police for spending their time investigating tweets and online messaging, and migrants at asylum hotels who he said have been jeering, making sexual assaults and the r word of women and children. He was challenged on the misinformation ref the scouts in Wales, it was interesting to hear him not accept that was wrong. There was so much to unpack in this interview that those who are really against Reform and Tice should have had a field day on the content, which is why I'm surprised this hasn't really happened. It was disturbing for him to mention citizens arrest - the any person power of arrest - as an option, without the greater context of when it can be used. There was so much of what he said that needs to be addressed. How it has flown under the radar this long, I don't know. " Agreed. I'm assuming 13 minutes of attention might be 12 minutes and 30 seconds too long for most. Maybe that should be the direction politicians need to go, long-form interviews to get the message out but undetected... It seems to be working for Tice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. What in your opinion was he saying? It was a real mixed message that exposed Reforms direction. He was touching on neighbourhoods being open to criminality and communities feeling unsafe, he was suggesting the community to come together in the absence of the police to tackle issues and protect children, woman and men, but was clear that meant within the law. He was direct in the idea that men should protect women in society as the gentlemanly thing to do. However that was simply a lead into his real messaging. Which started with an attack on the police for spending their time investigating tweets and online messaging, and migrants at asylum hotels who he said have been jeering, making sexual assaults and the r word of women and children. He was challenged on the misinformation ref the scouts in Wales, it was interesting to hear him not accept that was wrong. There was so much to unpack in this interview that those who are really against Reform and Tice should have had a field day on the content, which is why I'm surprised this hasn't really happened. It was disturbing for him to mention citizens arrest - the any person power of arrest - as an option, without the greater context of when it can be used. There was so much of what he said that needs to be addressed. How it has flown under the radar this long, I don't know. Agreed. I'm assuming 13 minutes of attention might be 12 minutes and 30 seconds too long for most. Maybe that should be the direction politicians need to go, long-form interviews to get the message out but undetected... It seems to be working for Tice." I must admit, I did end the interview when it moved to Putin and Trump, but so much of what was said was questionable. And when pressed on areas where he's alleging the cat calling and assaults are happening, he dodged to 'I'm not naming a primary school' He wasn't asked for the schools, a town name would have sufficed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. What in your opinion was he saying? It was a real mixed message that exposed Reforms direction. He was touching on neighbourhoods being open to criminality and communities feeling unsafe, he was suggesting the community to come together in the absence of the police to tackle issues and protect children, woman and men, but was clear that meant within the law. He was direct in the idea that men should protect women in society as the gentlemanly thing to do. However that was simply a lead into his real messaging. Which started with an attack on the police for spending their time investigating tweets and online messaging, and migrants at asylum hotels who he said have been jeering, making sexual assaults and the r word of women and children. He was challenged on the misinformation ref the scouts in Wales, it was interesting to hear him not accept that was wrong. There was so much to unpack in this interview that those who are really against Reform and Tice should have had a field day on the content, which is why I'm surprised this hasn't really happened. It was disturbing for him to mention citizens arrest - the any person power of arrest - as an option, without the greater context of when it can be used. There was so much of what he said that needs to be addressed. How it has flown under the radar this long, I don't know. Agreed. I'm assuming 13 minutes of attention might be 12 minutes and 30 seconds too long for most. Maybe that should be the direction politicians need to go, long-form interviews to get the message out but undetected... It seems to be working for Tice. I must admit, I did end the interview when it moved to Putin and Trump, but so much of what was said was questionable. And when pressed on areas where he's alleging the cat calling and assaults are happening, he dodged to 'I'm not naming a primary school' He wasn't asked for the schools, a town name would have sufficed. " This is why I'm confused that the anti Reformers are not turning up the heat to 11. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think *humans* should protect (and respect) other *humans*. What is being suggested by Richard Tice is about very much more than women being protected. Are you also supportive of people saying "All lives matter"? No because they are usually saying it because they object to the black lives matter movement. I believe and many will disagree with me I know, that Richard Tice intends by his words to engender fear in women and make men believe they are the only ones to allay these fears by mounting patrols of concerned citizens in certain areas. Of course he might just be saying all this for our own good and women's safety. I mean what possible agenda could a middle aged white guy have in trying to make women fear men from other cultures and asking other men to mount patrols to protect them? IF he had said that he thought it would be a good idea if men and women supported each other in every area of the country to ensure we all get home safely then I might think he had a point. He did start off talking about children, women and men being worried and frightened in their own neighbourhoods. He alluded to the fact that the police are not everywhere and in any numbers which is leaving a gap for criminality. There was a lot said, some of it made sense on the intent, some of what he said could recognised as an agenda he wanted to push. The long and short of it, there wasn't a speech focused only on alpha men, protecting weak women, that wasn't really the crux of what he was saying. What in your opinion was he saying? It was a real mixed message that exposed Reforms direction. He was touching on neighbourhoods being open to criminality and communities feeling unsafe, he was suggesting the community to come together in the absence of the police to tackle issues and protect children, woman and men, but was clear that meant within the law. He was direct in the idea that men should protect women in society as the gentlemanly thing to do. However that was simply a lead into his real messaging. Which started with an attack on the police for spending their time investigating tweets and online messaging, and migrants at asylum hotels who he said have been jeering, making sexual assaults and the r word of women and children. He was challenged on the misinformation ref the scouts in Wales, it was interesting to hear him not accept that was wrong. There was so much to unpack in this interview that those who are really against Reform and Tice should have had a field day on the content, which is why I'm surprised this hasn't really happened. It was disturbing for him to mention citizens arrest - the any person power of arrest - as an option, without the greater context of when it can be used. There was so much of what he said that needs to be addressed. How it has flown under the radar this long, I don't know. Agreed. I'm assuming 13 minutes of attention might be 12 minutes and 30 seconds too long for most. Maybe that should be the direction politicians need to go, long-form interviews to get the message out but undetected... It seems to be working for Tice. I must admit, I did end the interview when it moved to Putin and Trump, but so much of what was said was questionable. And when pressed on areas where he's alleging the cat calling and assaults are happening, he dodged to 'I'm not naming a primary school' He wasn't asked for the schools, a town name would have sufficed. This is why I'm confused that the anti Reformers are not turning up the heat to 11." And the "mistakes happen" comment in relation to the Welsh scout camp incident. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is a "child abuse supportive image"? Images of children in situations that really shouldn't be happening. I'm afraid I don't know what that means either. I can't imagine a situation which doesn't count as 'child abuse', but does count as 'child abuse supportive'." I suggest that you research it elsewhere as discussion of this topic is not allowed in the forum | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I suggest that you research it elsewhere as discussion of this topic is not allowed in the forum" I did try to research it before posting here, but I couldn't find that particular phrase in a search. But I agree with the forum rules, so this is something I'll just have to accept that I'll never know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bournemouth Echo has run a story about a non political safety group, who's founder has posted some questionable things on line. " A town the size of Bournemouth could employ 30 extra police officers for around £12–£14 a year on a Band D council tax bill. Isn’t it time local areas started thinking more seriously about the services they supply, and whether they reflect what people actually want, or don't want. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bournemouth Echo has run a story about a non political safety group, who's founder has posted some questionable things on line. A town the size of Bournemouth could employ 30 extra police officers for around £12–£14 a year on a Band D council tax bill. Isn’t it time local areas started thinking more seriously about the services they supply, and whether they reflect what people actually want, or don't want." That would be a sensible solution. I wonder what the reception to that proposal would be? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Don't worry, it's not really about that hypothetical situation. However. Someone has suggested that to keep our women safe, there should be a 'neighbourhood watch' style system set up of men patrolling the streets to protect the women of the UK. Is this a good idea? What pitfalls could there be? " I think the woman of the UK have more to fear from the men of the UK than any other amplified group. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Bournemouth Echo has run a story about a non political safety group, who's founder has posted some questionable things on line. A town the size of Bournemouth could employ 30 extra police officers for around £12–£14 a year on a Band D council tax bill. Isn’t it time local areas started thinking more seriously about the services they supply, and whether they reflect what people actually want, or don't want. That would be a sensible solution. I wonder what the reception to that proposal would be? " Outrage most likely, however it would surely be a good thing to see a return on your council tax investment that was something other than the bins emptied.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is a "child abuse supportive image"? Images of children in situations that really shouldn't be happening. I'm afraid I don't know what that means either. I can't imagine a situation which doesn't count as 'child abuse', but does count as 'child abuse supportive'. I suggest that you research it elsewhere as discussion of this topic is not allowed in the forum" Apologies, the point I was trying to make was that those two cases are why women and girls need to be wary of men and boys. The one example should not have been used due to the nature of the convictions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hmm, who watches the watchmen....." Vigilantes. Ever vigilant(e). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A British born Sikh woman has been r@ped in a racially driven incident, and it made the news, but there's not been the same level of outrage. Her attackers (2 of them!) were white men. If the protests outside the hotels, and the marches and demonstrations are, indeed, about protecting women, how has this incident not drawn more attention?" It's absolutely disgusting, what happened to her. Castration is in order. Nobody says that British people don't commit the most awful crimes. The thinking (presumably) is that when you invite a guest into your house and they misbehave (let's not say in the case of assault), you can kick them out and question why you every let them in to begin with. When it's a family member, then you need to deal with them as family and you cannot simply kick them out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A British born Sikh woman has been r@ped in a racially driven incident, and it made the news, but there's not been the same level of outrage. Her attackers (2 of them!) were white men. If the protests outside the hotels, and the marches and demonstrations are, indeed, about protecting women, how has this incident not drawn more attention? It's absolutely disgusting, what happened to her. Castration is in order. Nobody says that British people don't commit the most awful crimes. The thinking (presumably) is that when you invite a guest into your house and they misbehave (let's not say in the case of assault), you can kick them out and question why you every let them in to begin with. When it's a family member, then you need to deal with them as family and you cannot simply kick them out." I agree, British people do commit abhorrent crimes, but in the current climate, they don't draw the same media attention (social media included) as when a person of colour does something similar. She is a British citizen. She was born here. If these men are identified, and it gets to court, and they are convicted, they can expect an uplift in whatever sentence is passed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A British born Sikh woman has been r@ped in a racially driven incident, and it made the news, but there's not been the same level of outrage. Her attackers (2 of them!) were white men. If the protests outside the hotels, and the marches and demonstrations are, indeed, about protecting women, how has this incident not drawn more attention?" Quite simply that for some such a crime is ok as her skin colour isn't white.. She 'wanted it's, and in any case it's her word against theirs etc etc.. Had it been two men of the same religion and a white woman by now there would be a thread on here and in the lounge forum and social media by the usual agitators in this country and others would be in melt down and protests against other men of the same colour skin.. Exactly the same repugnant myopia that we saw when the three cases of sexual ab#se and r#pe convictions were rightly given to two white gangs (Glasgow & Bolton) and two white blokes from down south.. Not a fucking peep from those on here and the usual suspects online who claim to be protecting of the victims.. The hypocrisy is rank, the real reason is pure racial hatred.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
