On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
They should have given her more than a "hot drink" for free but I think I agree with you in principle.
"despite the acrimony over vaccine exports, there is little evidence of shortages in most of Europe. On the contrary, many countries are struggling to administer what they have to their citizens.
According to the latest EU figures, Germany and France have each used less than three-quarters of their vaccine stocks, while Belgium has used less than a third."
Telegraph
They appear to have misunderstood. Having heard Astrazeneca can be "stored in a fridge" they done just that with it.
I'm getting my first jab this evening, which I work out gives me a substantial level of immunity for Good Friday and some outdoor socialising.
How I hate wishing my life away. Being in prison must be something like this.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
The problem is whether it would put the woman under pressure to comply, for fear of being identified as the unreasonable one and booted off the flight.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
That beefy 1% pay rise will turn that around.
Considering that is above inflation, most jobs are at-risk or frozen pay, and that nurse recruitment is at record levels, yes it will. 👍
Ah, that famously risk free job of nursing covid patients
We are putting Covid behind us and yes the jobs are secure.
As for risk of Covid the fact is that while less high profile there are considerable sectors seeing job losses and pay freezes and higher rates of Covid deaths tragically.
But they're not as pretty or high profile as nurses so you don't give a fuck about that do you Jonathan?
Steady on old chap, I appreciate its hard to defend the indefensible and follow the party line, but it’s not even 8.30.
The indefensible is boosting the pay of secure public sector jobs at a time that the private sector that pays for it has been under immense stress, job losses and insecurity.
But for you there's never a time not to boost pay is there? Pay rises for all, all the time, and who cares that businesses are teetering on the edge of collapse and can't give pay rises or fund these pay rises eh?
Let's wait to see what Labour actually DO about nurse's pay in the one place where they are in power.
Labour have the freedom in Wales to implement whatever additional pay rise or bonus they wish.
Over to the Great Drakeford ...
It's true that other sectors have suffered worse and much (all?) NHS is quite possibly fulltime plus overtime.
I know numbers of people who have been furloughed on 80% of basic, where basic was about 70% of normal earnings. So they have lost almost half.
I have argued for the 2.1% plus a holiday bonus.
It was interesting listening to Angela Rayner this morning - their arguments are not exactly strong yet.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
The government says there is a long waiting list of people to train up?
Jam tomorrow. This is always Conservative policy. They are incapable of preparing for what is already starting to happen.
It's always easy to get people to want to try something. When they actually get to work and find, eg in this case that it's not all Casualty or Holby City, enthusiasm has been known to wane.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
That beefy 1% pay rise will turn that around.
Considering that is above inflation, most jobs are at-risk or frozen pay, and that nurse recruitment is at record levels, yes it will. 👍
Ah, that famously risk free job of nursing covid patients
We are putting Covid behind us and yes the jobs are secure.
As for risk of Covid the fact is that while less high profile there are considerable sectors seeing job losses and pay freezes and higher rates of Covid deaths tragically.
But they're not as pretty or high profile as nurses so you don't give a fuck about that do you Jonathan?
Steady on old chap, I appreciate its hard to defend the indefensible and follow the party line, but it’s not even 8.30.
The indefensible is boosting the pay of secure public sector jobs at a time that the private sector that pays for it has been under immense stress, job losses and insecurity.
But for you there's never a time not to boost pay is there? Pay rises for all, all the time, and who cares that businesses are teetering on the edge of collapse and can't give pay rises or fund these pay rises eh?
Like Amazon?
Amazon should be taxed more but Amazon is not the private sector, it is an exception not the norm.
Like Tesco?
Like Bonmarche? Like Arcadia Group? Like Peacocks and Jaeger? Like Edinburgh Woollen Mill? Like DW Sports? Like the Norville Group? Like Go Outdoors? Like Harvey's Furniture? Like Oak Furnitureland? Like Monsoon? Like Brighthouse? Like Carluccio’s? Like Cath Kidston? Like Chiquitos? Like Debenhams? Like Laura Ashley?
Just a fraction of the companies that went bust and lost tens of thousands of jobs.
Or like John Lewis and Pizza Express who are just about hanging on but will shut stores and dump jobs.
For every example of a company that has done well out of the Pandemic I can probably find ten that have sacked workers or gone out of business completely.
I have seen someone (a journalist, apparently) suggesting an actual police officer used a real piece of ID to get close to someone for the purposes of a horrific crime.
99% of men can't do anything to alter their behaviour in the light of that because we don't have police uniforms, cars, or warrant cards. Urwin has an irrational take on this.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
That beefy 1% pay rise will turn that around.
Considering that is above inflation, most jobs are at-risk or frozen pay, and that nurse recruitment is at record levels, yes it will. 👍
Ah, that famously risk free job of nursing covid patients
We are putting Covid behind us and yes the jobs are secure.
As for risk of Covid the fact is that while less high profile there are considerable sectors seeing job losses and pay freezes and higher rates of Covid deaths tragically.
But they're not as pretty or high profile as nurses so you don't give a fuck about that do you Jonathan?
Steady on old chap, I appreciate its hard to defend the indefensible and follow the party line, but it’s not even 8.30.
The indefensible is boosting the pay of secure public sector jobs at a time that the private sector that pays for it has been under immense stress, job losses and insecurity.
But for you there's never a time not to boost pay is there? Pay rises for all, all the time, and who cares that businesses are teetering on the edge of collapse and can't give pay rises or fund these pay rises eh?
Let's wait to see what Labour actually DO about nurse's pay in the one place where they are in power.
Labour have the freedom in Wales to implement whatever additional pay rise or bonus they wish.
Over to the Great Drakeford ...
It's true that other sectors have suffered worse and much (all?) NHS is quite possibly fulltime plus overtime.
I know numbers of people who have been furloughed on 80% of basic, where basic was about 70% of normal earnings. So they have lost almost half.
I have argued for the 2.1% plus a holiday bonus.
It was interesting listening to Angela Rayner this morning - their arguments are not exactly strong yet.
Well of course they aren't. The argument is entirely emotional. It has to be. The 2.1% plan was made in 2019, and we all know what happened after that.
I don't think that majoring on Our Beloved NHS during the forthcoming election campaign is a tactical mistake by Labour - far from it, it's an obvious choice and it's something they can all unite around - but exactly how much of an impact it will have remains to be seen.
Alistair Heath: The EU is a perfect example of what Benedict Anderson described as an imagined community. Its foundational myths are that ever-closer union is what ensures peace, prosperity and the security of its citizens. National self-government, by contrast, must lead to chaos, poverty and disease.
Like all powerful ideological claims, it cannot stand to be contradicted by reality: the fact that breakaway Britain has triumphed in the vaccine race is an intolerable affront, a scientific impossibility even. The result is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, a refusal to face facts, and an attempt at finding refuge in the EU’s comfort zone by claiming that Britain cheated, that we lied, as we have supposedly done throughout history. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/shameful-eu-elite-will-never-take-responsibility-vaccine-disaster/
I can't deny enjoying evidence of our success with vaccines. It is also very easy to mock EU efforts but this smugness about the completely unnecessary deaths of many, many tens of thousands of our fellow Europeans over the coming months is becoming more than a tad distasteful. It's time to move on and wish them every success in catching up, helping when we have met our own needs.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
That beefy 1% pay rise will turn that around.
Considering that is above inflation, most jobs are at-risk or frozen pay, and that nurse recruitment is at record levels, yes it will. 👍
Ah, that famously risk free job of nursing covid patients
We are putting Covid behind us and yes the jobs are secure.
As for risk of Covid the fact is that while less high profile there are considerable sectors seeing job losses and pay freezes and higher rates of Covid deaths tragically.
But they're not as pretty or high profile as nurses so you don't give a fuck about that do you Jonathan?
Steady on old chap, I appreciate its hard to defend the indefensible and follow the party line, but it’s not even 8.30.
The indefensible is boosting the pay of secure public sector jobs at a time that the private sector that pays for it has been under immense stress, job losses and insecurity.
But for you there's never a time not to boost pay is there? Pay rises for all, all the time, and who cares that businesses are teetering on the edge of collapse and can't give pay rises or fund these pay rises eh?
Like Amazon?
Amazon should be taxed more but Amazon is not the private sector, it is an exception not the norm.
Like Tesco?
If by Tesco you mean retail in general then yes, retail has had an absolutely torrid time in general. The exceptions are not the norm.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
They should have given her more than a "hot drink" for free but I think I agree with you in principle.
I wonder what one-time VPOTUS Mike Pence would do if flying alone and a woman was seated next to him?
I have seen someone (a journalist, apparently) suggesting an actual police officer used a real piece of ID to get close to someone for the purposes of a horrific crime.
99% of men can't do anything to alter their behaviour in the light of that because we don't have police uniforms, cars, or warrant cards. Urwin has an irrational take on this.
But with all due respect you're missing the point.
This is not about people blaming Sarah Everard, it's about a culture where women are warned to take precautions more often than men are warned against attacking women.
Now of course it's sensible for everyone to take precautions, but the point these people are making is that in an ideal world it shouldn't be for women to take precautions, it should be for (primarily) male attackers to not attack...
You could debate the value of such commentary, I personally don't think it really adds anything, but it's really not what you think it is.
I have seen someone (a journalist, apparently) suggesting an actual police officer used a real piece of ID to get close to someone for the purposes of a horrific crime.
99% of men can't do anything to alter their behaviour in the light of that because we don't have police uniforms, cars, or warrant cards. Urwin has an irrational take on this.
But with all due respect you're missing the point.
This is not about people blaming Sarah Everard, it's about a culture where women are warned to take precautions more often than men are warned against attacking women.
Now of course it's sensible for everyone to take precautions, but the point these people are making is that in an ideal world it shouldn't be for women to take precautions, it should be for (primarily) male attackers to not attack...
You could debate the value of such commentary, I personally don't think it really adds anything, but it's really not what you think it is.
And the issue here is that regardless of whatever precautions people can suggest it seems that Sarah Everard was killed by someone abusing his position that gave him everything required to override those precautions.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
Where will they have to go en masse that offers better rewards?
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
That’s ridiculous. She was being harassed on the grounds of her gender. The appropriate conflict resolution would have been to move the harassers or kick them off the plane.
I tend to fly BA from Tel Aviv to London (although easyJet is very popular). If you kicked all the orthodox off the plane I doubt the route would be economic (the BA flight doesn’t work with sun down or something religiously significant)
No need to kick the orthodox off. They just need to accept they have to sit next to whomever they're sat next to, while they're on the plane.
Ultimately it’s a conflict of their religious freedom vs her rights not to be discriminated against.
The solution is to move people around the plane to make it work.
Which is what EasyJet did
Religious freedom doesn't include determining where other people sit in a public space.
Alistair Heath: The EU is a perfect example of what Benedict Anderson described as an imagined community. Its foundational myths are that ever-closer union is what ensures peace, prosperity and the security of its citizens. National self-government, by contrast, must lead to chaos, poverty and disease.
Like all powerful ideological claims, it cannot stand to be contradicted by reality: the fact that breakaway Britain has triumphed in the vaccine race is an intolerable affront, a scientific impossibility even. The result is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, a refusal to face facts, and an attempt at finding refuge in the EU’s comfort zone by claiming that Britain cheated, that we lied, as we have supposedly done throughout history. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/shameful-eu-elite-will-never-take-responsibility-vaccine-disaster/
I can't deny enjoying evidence of our success with vaccines. It is also very easy to mock EU efforts but this smugness about the completely unnecessary deaths of many, many tens of thousands of our fellow Europeans over the coming months is becoming more than a tad distasteful. It's time to move on and wish them every success in catching up, helping when we have met our own needs.
The article is aimed at the "shameful EU elite". No-one gloats about unnecessary deaths. The antics of Michel, Macron, VDL et al are the shame.
I have seen someone (a journalist, apparently) suggesting an actual police officer used a real piece of ID to get close to someone for the purposes of a horrific crime.
99% of men can't do anything to alter their behaviour in the light of that because we don't have police uniforms, cars, or warrant cards. Urwin has an irrational take on this.
But with all due respect you're missing the point.
This is not about people blaming Sarah Everard, it's about a culture where women are warned to take precautions more often than men are warned against attacking women.
Now of course it's sensible for everyone to take precautions, but the point these people are making is that in an ideal world it shouldn't be for women to take precautions, it should be for (primarily) male attackers to not attack...
You could debate the value of such commentary, I personally don't think it really adds anything, but it's really not what you think it is.
Surely the point there is that the vast majority of men do not need warnings not to attack women and those who are inclined to that behaviour are not going to pay heed to such warnings anyway. Its like telling armed robbers not to rob banks.
Any normal person knows attacking women - in any way, not just this most horrendous example - is wrong and not something right needed people do. But in the end we do not live in an 'ideal world' we live in this one and in this one what we need is to provide protection for women in addition to helping them to help themselves.
There is no amount of education (either of men or of women) that would have protected someone from a deranged authority figure abusing their symbols of authority in this way.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
There was a similar piece on Radio 4 (which also included Jess Phillips), saying effectively saying that male violence is the fault of all men for not doing something about it.
If they'd spoken the same way about, say, an ethnic minority, they'd have been rightly vilified.
"despite the acrimony over vaccine exports, there is little evidence of shortages in most of Europe. On the contrary, many countries are struggling to administer what they have to their citizens.
According to the latest EU figures, Germany and France have each used less than three-quarters of their vaccine stocks, while Belgium has used less than a third."
Telegraph
They appear to have misunderstood. Having heard Astrazeneca can be "stored in a fridge" they done just that with it.
I'm getting my first jab this evening, which I work out gives me a substantial level of immunity for Good Friday and some outdoor socialising.
How I hate wishing my life away. Being in prison must be something like this.
It's a reminder to us all that the "quality" of prison isn't really the issue.
If you're locked down you're locked down. However it is.
I am reading from the independence polls that people's views on the SNP are directly affecting their opinions on independence. I don't subscribe to the notion that independence means a 1,000-year SNP rule, but it is certainly interesting.
What we haven't seen as yet is evidence that there is much of a slide for them in the Holyood Elections which are just weeks away now.
The SNP have been trending downwards for a while now. We have had threads on it. Their starting point, however, was incredibly high promising a comfortable overall majority. Even now it is touch and go. The key for the election is whether this is a Sturgeon/Salmond related blip or a more general concern that Scotland is not operating like a functioning democracy. I think that is still pretty tough to call. If I had to put money on it right now I would suggest a carbon copy of what we currently have with the SNP just short but the Greens able to give them a majority.
I'm hoping not, of course.
You pays your money for a poll and takes your choice. The Yougov in today's times suggests that the SNP are on course for 71 MSPs (a majority) with SCons and SLab losing MSPs.
Ross and Sarwar ratings poor with a suggestion that Scottish voters don't really know who they are. I'm not convinced getting to know either of them better will do much for their respective parties.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
There was a similar piece on Radio 4 (which also included Jess Phillips), saying this is the fault of all men for not doing something about it.
If they'd spoken the same way about, say, an ethnic minority, they'd have been rightly vilified.
Did they actually say "this is the fault of all men for doing something about it" or was their actual point more nuanced and you've just decided they are "attacking all men" which is all too common...?
We don't have the death penalty here, so I'd go for someone using their implicit police authority to kidnap and then chop up (If they're found guilty) the victim with a whole life tariff, solitary confinement, no visitors. What he's alleged to have done is beyond horrific and the only argument for non use of the death penalty is the fact the state can make mistakes.
GlaxoSmithKline antibody drug reduces death by 85pc A monoclonal antibody drug reduces hospital admission or death from Covid-19 by 85%, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has announced. The drug, called VIR-7831, is a new treatment for people with mild to moderate illness, and the study has been so successful that it has been stopped early. GSK and its partner, Vir Biotechnology, plan to immediately seek an emergency use authorisation in the United States and approval in other countries, including potentially in the UK. Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced molecules that mimic human antibodies. The global phase 3 clinical trial based its initial analysis on data from 583 patients at risk of hospital admission. GSK said VIR-7831 works in two ways - by blocking the virus's entry into healthy cells and also clearing infected cells.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
I haven't heard anyone make that argument yet. And should there even be a debate (about anything) yet whilst police are still establishing all the facts about what happened to her and why?
The way she's phrased it looks like she's blaming all men, which is one of her hobby-horses, and trying to crowbar that into this tragedy isn't going to land well.
Alistair Heath: The EU is a perfect example of what Benedict Anderson described as an imagined community. Its foundational myths are that ever-closer union is what ensures peace, prosperity and the security of its citizens. National self-government, by contrast, must lead to chaos, poverty and disease.
Like all powerful ideological claims, it cannot stand to be contradicted by reality: the fact that breakaway Britain has triumphed in the vaccine race is an intolerable affront, a scientific impossibility even. The result is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, a refusal to face facts, and an attempt at finding refuge in the EU’s comfort zone by claiming that Britain cheated, that we lied, as we have supposedly done throughout history. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/shameful-eu-elite-will-never-take-responsibility-vaccine-disaster/
I can't deny enjoying evidence of our success with vaccines. It is also very easy to mock EU efforts but this smugness about the completely unnecessary deaths of many, many tens of thousands of our fellow Europeans over the coming months is becoming more than a tad distasteful. It's time to move on and wish them every success in catching up, helping when we have met our own needs.
I completely agree that it's not right to engage in schadenfreude over the unnecessary and avoidable deaths.
But no, besides Ireland whom it's in our own self interest to help, we absolutely should not divert our excess doses meant for Covax to wealthy nations that are only struggling because of tardiness and penny pinching.
Not unless they match our generosity with even more generosity towards Covax to compensate.
If that is partly true - it's going to be a whole life tariff even if he pleads guilty immediately.
So it should be. Horrific.
Strange tweet. "It's on men". What does she want the 28 million or so men in the country to do?
Kneejerk from Rosamund?
You're missing the point...
She isn't saying the 28 million or so men should have done something to "stop the attack". They're saying that if we want to stop violence against women, the onus is on men to stop attacking women and not for women to take greater and greater precautions.
I'm a man and this isn't an attack on me. Why are you viewing it as an attack on you?
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
Alistair Heath: The EU is a perfect example of what Benedict Anderson described as an imagined community. Its foundational myths are that ever-closer union is what ensures peace, prosperity and the security of its citizens. National self-government, by contrast, must lead to chaos, poverty and disease.
Like all powerful ideological claims, it cannot stand to be contradicted by reality: the fact that breakaway Britain has triumphed in the vaccine race is an intolerable affront, a scientific impossibility even. The result is a classic case of cognitive dissonance, a refusal to face facts, and an attempt at finding refuge in the EU’s comfort zone by claiming that Britain cheated, that we lied, as we have supposedly done throughout history. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/10/shameful-eu-elite-will-never-take-responsibility-vaccine-disaster/
I can't deny enjoying evidence of our success with vaccines. It is also very easy to mock EU efforts but this smugness about the completely unnecessary deaths of many, many tens of thousands of our fellow Europeans over the coming months is becoming more than a tad distasteful. It's time to move on and wish them every success in catching up, helping when we have met our own needs.
I dare say that these loud media figures might have more motivation for talking about something else if the EU itself didn't provide a continual supply of fresh ammunition.
The continued attempts to deflect blame by scapegoating the UK are sad and pathetic. It's grievance mongering against a smaller neighbour. It's a bit like, say, if Scotland had fallen off in 2014 and Westminster had immediately started to find excuses to blame the Scots for all of our problems.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
If that is partly true - it's going to be a whole life tariff even if he pleads guilty immediately.
So it should be. Horrific.
Strange tweet. "It's on men". What does she want the 28 million or so men in the country to do?
Kneejerk from Rosamund?
You're missing the point...
She isn't saying the 28 million or so men should have done something to "stop the attack". They're saying that if we want to stop violence against women, the onus is on men to stop attacking women and not for women to take greater and greater precautions.
I'm a man and this isn't an attack on me. Why are you viewing it as an attack on you?
Saying "if we want to stop violence against women, the onus is on men to stop attacking women" implies that men in general are at fault.
Perhaps you mean "if we want to stop violence against women, the onus is on some men (and some women) to stop attacking some women" . Wouldn`t be particularly illuminating though.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
There was a similar piece on Radio 4 (which also included Jess Phillips), saying this is the fault of all men for not doing something about it.
If they'd spoken the same way about, say, an ethnic minority, they'd have been rightly vilified.
Did they actually say "this is the fault of all men for doing something about it" or was their actual point more nuanced and you've just decided they are "attacking all men" which is all too common...?
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
There should have been give and take I agree, but in the end what wasn't done was to say to the men, these are the arrangements, if you don't like it, find another carrier.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
It's a straw man (person?). Who would ever criticise a woman attacked at random (or not at random for that matter)?
It's a very simple argument. The EU leadership is relying solely on their contract for delivery of vaccines. For them to get delivery ahead of us would require at least partial abrogation of our contract, which was agreed long before theirs (even setting aside the fact that we funded the entire development program).
If they had simply requested at the start that we share some of our vaccine as a matter of goodwill, then it's possible the UK might have considered that request. Instead, from the very beginning, they made this a legal dispute, in which all the facts stand against them.
I am not sure whether this is a deliberate strategy to blame us for their failings, simple arrogance, or just incompetence. Could be a mix of all three.
And, of course, while they persist in this line, it's politically impossible for the UK government to show any generosity.
The man's a fool. It took PB, collectively, about five seconds to demolish Michel's argument yesterday. Basically,
1. He's not to expect the UK to provide export figures, given that it may well not have accurate information because there are no controls on vaccine exports 2. One would expect the EU to export more because it's a global production hub for Pfizer; the UK only manufactures the AZ vaccine at the moment and that's being managed through local centres dotted all over the world (hence the fact that the EU has its own capacity, and the UK is importing some of its AZ requirement from the Serum Institute of India)
There's no basis for complaint here, it's merely blaming the Brits to deflect from the EU's problems, which are a combination of bad luck and bad judgment.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
That beefy 1% pay rise will turn that around.
Considering that is above inflation, most jobs are at-risk or frozen pay, and that nurse recruitment is at record levels, yes it will. 👍
Ah, that famously risk free job of nursing covid patients
We are putting Covid behind us and yes the jobs are secure.
As for risk of Covid the fact is that while less high profile there are considerable sectors seeing job losses and pay freezes and higher rates of Covid deaths tragically.
But they're not as pretty or high profile as nurses so you don't give a fuck about that do you Jonathan?
Steady on old chap, I appreciate its hard to defend the indefensible and follow the party line, but it’s not even 8.30.
The indefensible is boosting the pay of secure public sector jobs at a time that the private sector that pays for it has been under immense stress, job losses and insecurity.
But for you there's never a time not to boost pay is there? Pay rises for all, all the time, and who cares that businesses are teetering on the edge of collapse and can't give pay rises or fund these pay rises eh?
Like Amazon?
Amazon should be taxed more but Amazon is not the private sector, it is an exception not the norm.
Like Tesco?
Like Bonmarche? Like Arcadia Group? Like Peacocks and Jaeger? Like Edinburgh Woollen Mill? Like DW Sports? Like the Norville Group? Like Go Outdoors? Like Harvey's Furniture? Like Oak Furnitureland? Like Monsoon? Like Brighthouse? Like Carluccio’s? Like Cath Kidston? Like Chiquitos? Like Debenhams? Like Laura Ashley?
Just a fraction of the companies that went bust and lost tens of thousands of jobs.
Or like John Lewis and Pizza Express who are just about hanging on but will shut stores and dump jobs.
For every example of a company that has done well out of the Pandemic I can probably find ten that have sacked workers or gone out of business completely.
Any idea how much private sector pay has been cut over the last year? And how much public sector pay has been cut?* Without that your figures are meaningless. Actually they are meaningless anyway. I haven't seen any major branches of the public sector going bust and having to shut down - unlike vast swathes of the private sector.
*Actually having just checked I can tell you.
Private sector pay fell by 0.6% in the year ending April 2020 Public sector pay went up by 0.1% over the same period.
And that is before the main impact of Covid was felt
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
Isn't it such an obvious point that it's going to be lost on anyone who pays attention. I mean anti littering campaigns might work as people who litter whilst misbehaving might just respond to an information campaign. But the message of don't kidnap, rape and murder women is a bit like telling people not to bury people under their patio after the Fred West stuff came out. The worst part about all this is that the murderer was seemingly in the police force. That's an institution that NEEDS implicit trust from the public and it's not going to get it now. Information on how EVERYONE (It's rarer due to the lower prevalence in society generally, but homosexual male serial killers are a thing) should interact and what they should expect from the police is going to have to go out as public information.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
We can increase the incentives to not offend, e.g. better policing, increased sentencing etc. And (arguably) education programmes such as citizenship teaching in schools may help to a limited degree.
Mr. Royale, it's easy to miss things. I never got the 51 on Obama. And usually screw up leadership contest markets.
Richard Burgon is currently 50/1 to be next Labour leader. While he is unlikely to get it, he is potentially the Lefts candidate in a leadership challenge.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
I don't disagree with anything you've said other than that there is "nothing you can do". Some societies have much worse murder rates than others, so clearly *something* can be done.
I certainly don't disagree that giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is useful. It is, but it wouldn't have helped Sarah Everard.
Like I said, that's the point Rosamund Urwin is making. She is saying that no amount of advice to the victim would have made a blind bit of difference and therefore it's not about women "changing their behavior" but about men changing theirs.
Not all men. Not me and you or @Morris_Dancer, but the attackers themselves.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
Isn't it such an obvious point that it's going to be lost on anyone who pays attention. I mean anti littering campaigns might work as people who litter whilst misbehaving might just respond to an information campaign. But the message of don't kidnap, rape and murder women is a bit like telling people not to bury people under their patio after the Fred West stuff came out. The worst part about all this is that the murderer was seemingly in the police force. That's an institution that NEEDS implicit trust from the public and it's not going to get it now. Information on how EVERYONE (It's rarer due to the lower prevalence in society generally, but homosexual male serial killers are a thing) should interact and what they should expect from the police is going to have to go out as public information.
I agree that it doesn't add much value to the conversation. I just felt like I needed to reassure people that very few, if anyone other than the most radical super feminist, is blaming "all men".
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
We can increase the incentives to not offend, e.g. better policing, increased sentencing etc. And (arguably) education programmes such as citizenship teaching in schools may help to a limited degree.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
I have to say that I've seen no evidence of victim blaming, all of the blame so far has been piled onto the alleged perpetrator and rightly so. It's made my wife fearful of walking alone at night (despite us living in probably the safest part of London) and a few of my friends in Clapham are afraid to go outside because the dead girl did everything right, as you say.
If the arrested person is guilty then we absolutely need the toughest possible sentence including a full life tariff. No redemption, no second chance. Sarah Everard won't get one.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
210m shots completed? That’s over 60% of the population- given the well documented reticence of large segments of the US population that seems unlikely.
In another 50 days, not completed, and many will be second doses.
I suspect vaccine hesitancy will continue to diminish with the roll out.
Biden off to a great start. No showman, just getting on with stuff.
Have any of your previously vaccine-hesitant work colleagues relented and agreed to be vaccinated Foxy? I heard in the news somewhere that take up is picking up generally in some of the previously reluctant cohorts.
Some have, some haven't. Uptake in my Trust is now about 80%. Some are legit of course, pregnant staff, or within a month of testing positive etc.
Any pressure yet to start moving staff who refuse to different roles?
No, not that I am aware of.
Our biggest problem is staff retention. Lots are burnt out and planning to call it a day.
That beefy 1% pay rise will turn that around.
Considering that is above inflation, most jobs are at-risk or frozen pay, and that nurse recruitment is at record levels, yes it will. 👍
Ah, that famously risk free job of nursing covid patients
We are putting Covid behind us and yes the jobs are secure.
As for risk of Covid the fact is that while less high profile there are considerable sectors seeing job losses and pay freezes and higher rates of Covid deaths tragically.
But they're not as pretty or high profile as nurses so you don't give a fuck about that do you Jonathan?
Steady on old chap, I appreciate its hard to defend the indefensible and follow the party line, but it’s not even 8.30.
The indefensible is boosting the pay of secure public sector jobs at a time that the private sector that pays for it has been under immense stress, job losses and insecurity.
But for you there's never a time not to boost pay is there? Pay rises for all, all the time, and who cares that businesses are teetering on the edge of collapse and can't give pay rises or fund these pay rises eh?
Like Amazon?
Amazon should be taxed more but Amazon is not the private sector, it is an exception not the norm.
Like Tesco?
Like Bonmarche? Like Arcadia Group? Like Peacocks and Jaeger? Like Edinburgh Woollen Mill? Like DW Sports? Like the Norville Group? Like Go Outdoors? Like Harvey's Furniture? Like Oak Furnitureland? Like Monsoon? Like Brighthouse? Like Carluccio’s? Like Cath Kidston? Like Chiquitos? Like Debenhams? Like Laura Ashley?
Just a fraction of the companies that went bust and lost tens of thousands of jobs.
Or like John Lewis and Pizza Express who are just about hanging on but will shut stores and dump jobs.
For every example of a company that has done well out of the Pandemic I can probably find ten that have sacked workers or gone out of business completely.
Any idea how much private sector pay has been cut over the last year? And how much public sector pay has been cut?* Without that your figures are meaningless. Actually they are meaningless anyway. I haven't seen any major branches of the public sector going bust and having to shut down - unlike vast swathes of the private sector.
*Actually having just checked I can tell you.
Private sector pay fell by 0.6% in the year ending April 2020 Public sector pay went up by 0.1% over the same period.
And that is before the main impact of Covid was felt
It would also be useful to see a figure for private sector pay rises if you excluded the minimum wage uplift and senior management payrises. I am pretty sure that the figure would be a lot lot lower
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
I don't disagree with anything you've said other than that there is "nothing you can do". Some societies have much worse murder rates than others, so clearly *something* can be done.
I certainly don't disagree that giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is useful. It is, but it wouldn't have helped Sarah Everard.
Like I said, that's the point Rosamund Urwin is making. She is saying that no amount of advice to the victim would have made a blind bit of difference and therefore it's not about women "changing their behavior" but about men changing theirs.
Not all men. Not me and you or @Morris_Dancer, but the attackers themselves.
But there will always be freak one off events where even if you had foreseen the issue and created appropriate best practice there is nothing you could do to solve it.
This sadly is one of those cases - as you cannot remove a warrant card from a serving police office, so the question to be asked is why was he currently still a serving police officer.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
If you're saying the only way to stop murders is to stop murderers from murdering then that's a truism. But what are men supposed to do about that.
That's like saying when an Islamist terrorist blows people up that the only way to stop that is for Muslims to refrain from killing people.
Would you ascribe a terror attack to all Muslims in the way she did to all men?
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
I don't disagree with anything you've said other than that there is "nothing you can do". Some societies have much worse murder rates than others, so clearly *something* can be done.
I certainly don't disagree that giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is useful. It is, but it wouldn't have helped Sarah Everard.
Like I said, that's the point Rosamund Urwin is making. She is saying that no amount of advice to the victim would have made a blind bit of difference and therefore it's not about women "changing their behavior" but about men changing theirs.
Not all men. Not me and you or @Morris_Dancer, but the attackers themselves.
On murder rates, most of the differential will be gang etc. related. Perhaps someone on here can point to studies that suggest that this sort of thing is more common in some countries compared with others, but I'd suggest there's always going to be a tiny percentage of people (mostly men) who will perpetrate horrific crimes.
I can understand why the Commissioner is upset by this, and I have no idea what sort of vetting goes on for the role the accused was doing, but there's always a chance that someone will turn out to be a complete monster.
And Urwin's tweet is crass. If someone tweeted after a terrorist attack that it was "on Muslims" they'd get the same sort of reaction, albeit perhaps from different people.
Mr. Royale, it's easy to miss things. I never got the 51 on Obama. And usually screw up leadership contest markets.
Richard Burgon is currently 50/1 to be next Labour leader. While he is unlikely to get it, he is potentially the Lefts candidate in a leadership challenge.
That really would be entertaining!
Wouldn’t it just. It would give the career of Matt Forde a fillip as well - he does a cracking Richard Burgon impression.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
I have to say that I've seen no evidence of victim blaming, all of the blame so far has been piled onto the alleged perpetrator and rightly so. It's made my wife fearful of walking alone at night (despite us living in probably the safest part of London) and a few of my friends in Clapham are afraid to go outside because the dead girl did everything right, as you say.
If the arrested person is guilty then we absolutely need the toughest possible sentence including a full life tariff. No redemption, no second chance. Sarah Everard won't get one.
I regret using the phrase "victim blaming". It was ill-advised and detracted from the point I was making.
I don't disagree with you though at all, and I think it's highly likely that if the offence is as rumoured then the perpetrator will be getting a very long prison sentence indeed, and rightly so in order to protect the public.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
The problem is whether it would put the woman under pressure to comply, for fear of being identified as the unreasonable one and booted off the flight.
It wasn't her problem to fix.
IIRC it was Singapore Airlines that had a better solution. Similar circumstance - some men complaining about a woman sitting nest to them.
The Singapore Airlines crew asked if the lady would like to move. To First Class.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
There was a similar piece on Radio 4 (which also included Jess Phillips), saying effectively saying that male violence is the fault of all men for not doing something about it.
If they'd spoken the same way about, say, an ethnic minority, they'd have been rightly vilified.
Not really. For example, how often have I read that the "Muslim community" doesn't do nearly enough to identify and weed out the bad apples that move among them and commit terrorist attacks? Same could apply to men, in theory.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
But the terrible, terrible circumstances of an authority figure perpetrating this using the victims desire to comply with the law were not known at the time. Given that, and the fact that the attacker was still at large, do you not think it's sensible to advise precautions, to make a second and third attack more difficult for him?
Sadly, many of us seem to have lost the reasoning capability to realise that bearing the responsibility to protect ourselves from the harmful actions of others is not the same as accepting a part of their guilt, as if there was a single guilt pie, and we are helping ourselves to a large slice. A murderer bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. A potential victim bears 100% of the responsibility for making sensible choices. They do not diminish each other.
If we go further down this route, do we just stop advising the public to take sensible precautions against crime for fear of causing offense?
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
If you're saying the only way to stop murders is to stop murderers from murdering then that's a truism. But what are men supposed to do about that.
That's like saying when an Islamist terrorist blows people up that the only way to stop that is for Muslims to refrain from killing people.
Would you ascribe a terror attack to all Muslims in the way she did to all men?
"Men" aren't supposed to do anything about it. I don't understand why some men are taking this as some sort of personal attack?
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
If you're saying the only way to stop murders is to stop murderers from murdering then that's a truism. But what are men supposed to do about that.
That's like saying when an Islamist terrorist blows people up that the only way to stop that is for Muslims to refrain from killing people.
Would you ascribe a terror attack to all Muslims in the way she did to all men?
"Men" aren't supposed to do anything about it. I don't understand why some men are taking this as some sort of personal attack?
You're completely misinterpreting her point.
It's a poorly worded Tweet that gives the impression that she thinks men in general are somehow to blame for this kind of thing. Perhaps she doesn't think that, but she should be more careful when making statements that could appear to be generalising.
The comparisons with Muslims and terrorist attacks is a fair one.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
But the terrible, terrible circumstances of an authority figure perpetrating this using the victims desire to comply with the law were not known at the time. Given that, and the fact that the attacker was still at large, do you not think it's sensible to advise precautions, to make a second and third attack more difficult for him?
Sadly, many of us seem to have lost the reasoning capability to realise that bearing the responsibility to protect ourselves from the harmful actions of others is not the same as accepting a part of their guilt, as if there was a single guilt pie, and we are helping ourselves to a large slice. A murderer bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. A potential victim bears 100% of the responsibility for making sensible choices. They do not diminish each other.
If we go further down this route, do we just stop advising the public to take sensible precautions against crime for fear of causing offense?
You're making the exact same point as Rosamund Urwin, you know that?
She's saying that the murderer bears 100% of the responsibility. She's highlighting that the victim couldn't have done anything more to protect herself.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
I don't disagree with anything you've said other than that there is "nothing you can do". Some societies have much worse murder rates than others, so clearly *something* can be done.
I certainly don't disagree that giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is useful. It is, but it wouldn't have helped Sarah Everard.
Like I said, that's the point Rosamund Urwin is making. She is saying that no amount of advice to the victim would have made a blind bit of difference and therefore it's not about women "changing their behavior" but about men changing theirs.
Not all men. Not me and you or @Morris_Dancer, but the attackers themselves.
But there will always be freak one off events where even if you had foreseen the issue and created appropriate best practice there is nothing you could do to solve it.
This sadly is one of those cases - as you cannot remove a warrant card from a serving police office, so the question to be asked is why was he currently still a serving police officer.
Surely he's suspended on paid leave whilst he awaits trial at the moment ? (In custody)
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
Isn't it such an obvious point that it's going to be lost on anyone who pays attention. I mean anti littering campaigns might work as people who litter whilst misbehaving might just respond to an information campaign. But the message of don't kidnap, rape and murder women is a bit like telling people not to bury people under their patio after the Fred West stuff came out. The worst part about all this is that the murderer was seemingly in the police force. That's an institution that NEEDS implicit trust from the public and it's not going to get it now. Information on how EVERYONE (It's rarer due to the lower prevalence in society generally, but homosexual male serial killers are a thing) should interact and what they should expect from the police is going to have to go out as public information.
Yes, that's the far more serious issue here - which hasn't really been engaged with yet.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
If you're saying the only way to stop murders is to stop murderers from murdering then that's a truism. But what are men supposed to do about that.
That's like saying when an Islamist terrorist blows people up that the only way to stop that is for Muslims to refrain from killing people.
Would you ascribe a terror attack to all Muslims in the way she did to all men?
"Men" aren't supposed to do anything about it. I don't understand why some men are taking this as some sort of personal attack?
You're completely misinterpreting her point.
It's a poorly worded Tweet that gives the impression that she thinks men in general are somehow to blame for this kind of thing. Perhaps she doesn't think that, but she should be more careful when making statements that could appear to be generalising.
The comparisons with Muslims and terrorist attacks is a fair one.
I've never disputed it was a poorly worded Tweet and that it adds very little, if anything, to the conversation.
But people don't need to get so triggered by it. It isn't a personal attack. It isn't about hating men.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
The problem is whether it would put the woman under pressure to comply, for fear of being identified as the unreasonable one and booted off the flight.
It wasn't her problem to fix.
IIRC it was Singapore Airlines that had a better solution. Similar circumstance - some men complaining about a woman sitting nest to them.
The Singapore Airlines crew asked if the lady would like to move. To First Class.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
We can increase the incentives to not offend, e.g. better policing, increased sentencing etc. And (arguably) education programmes such as citizenship teaching in schools may help to a limited degree.
100% agree.
Steven Levitt (the economist) wrote an excellent paper on this in 2004 (below) which addressed the dramatic fall in crime in the States. See pages 14-21.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
To take it to a less emotive level.....
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
So your response to this attack is what? – *shrug* it happens, bad men exist, better take better precautions next time?
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
My point was merely that there is nothing you can do, bad people will do bad things. No amount of campaigns or advice is going to change that whether its burglary or murder or whatever.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
I don't disagree with anything you've said other than that there is "nothing you can do". Some societies have much worse murder rates than others, so clearly *something* can be done.
I certainly don't disagree that giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is useful. It is, but it wouldn't have helped Sarah Everard.
Like I said, that's the point Rosamund Urwin is making. She is saying that no amount of advice to the victim would have made a blind bit of difference and therefore it's not about women "changing their behavior" but about men changing theirs.
Not all men. Not me and you or @Morris_Dancer, but the attackers themselves.
But there will always be freak one off events where even if you had foreseen the issue and created appropriate best practice there is nothing you could do to solve it.
This sadly is one of those cases - as you cannot remove a warrant card from a serving police office, so the question to be asked is why was he currently still a serving police officer.
Surely he's suspended on paid leave whilst he awaits trial at the moment ? (In custody)
Sorry what I meant was that when things are finally settled - there will need to be an investigation into how he was able to have a warrant card so that he could abuse his position and whether there was any evidence before hand as to his current mental state.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
But the terrible, terrible circumstances of an authority figure perpetrating this using the victims desire to comply with the law were not known at the time. Given that, and the fact that the attacker was still at large, do you not think it's sensible to advise precautions, to make a second and third attack more difficult for him?
Sadly, many of us seem to have lost the reasoning capability to realise that bearing the responsibility to protect ourselves from the harmful actions of others is not the same as accepting a part of their guilt, as if there was a single guilt pie, and we are helping ourselves to a large slice. A murderer bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. A potential victim bears 100% of the responsibility for making sensible choices. They do not diminish each other.
If we go further down this route, do we just stop advising the public to take sensible precautions against crime for fear of causing offense?
You're making the exact same point as Rosamund Urwin, you know that?
She's saying that the murderer bears 100% of the responsibility. She's highlighting that the victim couldn't have done anything more to protect herself.
It isn't an attack on "all men".
She doesn't say the murderer. She says "men". She says the onus is on men to change, not murderers.
One murderer does not make up men.
If Nick Griffin Tweeted that the onus is on Muslims to change, would you defend that?
Not particularly surprising. Scotland has been Ulsterized. It's all about identity now. The SNP vote is a bit like the Sinn Fein vote: Sturgeon's the leader of the liberation struggle, and most of them would back her if she were caught eating barbecued babies for supper. It's just how it is.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
If the men were uncomfortable then EasyJet could have found somewhere for them to move to. Absolutely shouldn't be down to the woman to make way.
I agree in principle that would be better (and that’s what they did on one occasion).
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
The problem is whether it would put the woman under pressure to comply, for fear of being identified as the unreasonable one and booted off the flight.
It wasn't her problem to fix.
IIRC it was Singapore Airlines that had a better solution. Similar circumstance - some men complaining about a woman sitting nest to them.
The Singapore Airlines crew asked if the lady would like to move. To First Class.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
My understanding of this is that it's down to how much we accept the current misogynistic culture that results in such high levels of violence by men against women (mostly by men known to their victims, rather than strangers as, apparently, in this case).
If we accept that it's inevitable, in the same way that the rain is inevitable, then the emphasis is on what precautions you can take (not walking alone, not drinking too much, etc) just as you would with the weather (check the forecast, bring an umbrella).
If you don't accept the status quo as inevitable then the emphasis is on what you can do to change the culture.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
It often happens that a high profile event will trigger a debate on the larger topic which the event speaks to. A recent example was the death of George Floyd and the subsequent focus on racism.
Here the event is the appalling death of this young woman and the topic of wider debate triggered is male violence and intimidation against women and girls. That it's worse in many other countries - at truly horrific levels in some parts of the world - does not mean things are fine on this score here. They aren't. It's a problem. It needs to be addressed, and part of this is asking whether there is too much expectation on women to make adjustments to "manage" the problems they encounter, as opposed to a zero tolerance for the male behaviours which cause the problems in the first place. There will be different views on this. That's why it's a debate.
That's the context. It is not about some feminazi telling you (or me) that we have to stop posing as coppers and stalking women on Clapham Common.
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
But the terrible, terrible circumstances of an authority figure perpetrating this using the victims desire to comply with the law were not known at the time. Given that, and the fact that the attacker was still at large, do you not think it's sensible to advise precautions, to make a second and third attack more difficult for him?
Sadly, many of us seem to have lost the reasoning capability to realise that bearing the responsibility to protect ourselves from the harmful actions of others is not the same as accepting a part of their guilt, as if there was a single guilt pie, and we are helping ourselves to a large slice. A murderer bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. A potential victim bears 100% of the responsibility for making sensible choices. They do not diminish each other.
If we go further down this route, do we just stop advising the public to take sensible precautions against crime for fear of causing offense?
You're making the exact same point as Rosamund Urwin, you know that?
She's saying that the murderer bears 100% of the responsibility. She's highlighting that the victim couldn't have done anything more to protect herself.
It isn't an attack on "all men".
She doesn't say the murderer. She says "men". She says the onus is on men to change, not murderers.
One murderer does not make up men.
If Nick Griffin Tweeted that the onus is on Muslims to change, would you defend that?
The difference is that I know Nick Griffin is a racist but I highly doubt Rosamund Urwin is a sexist.
I've admitted it wasn't phrased well but there's no need to get so triggered by it.
Interesting that Johnson & Johnson are reportedly having some difficulties in rapidly scaling up production of their recently approved vaccine. They will probably start delivering in really large quantities next month, rather than this.
There is a reason terms like 'best efforts' are used in contracts for the supply of novel medicines. Biological entities in particular are not simple to reliably manufacture in bulk.
On 2 occasions male passengers asked this lady to move because she was a woman. She dug her heels in and refused. EasyJet bribed her to move (albeit with just a hot drink) and she sues them because they didn’t back her up but sought conflict resolution.
That’s ridiculous. She was being harassed on the grounds of her gender. The appropriate conflict resolution would have been to move the harassers or kick them off the plane.
I tend to fly BA from Tel Aviv to London (although easyJet is very popular). If you kicked all the orthodox off the plane I doubt the route would be economic (the BA flight doesn’t work with sun down or something religiously significant)
No need to kick the orthodox off. They just need to accept they have to sit next to whomever they're sat next to, while they're on the plane.
Ultimately it’s a conflict of their religious freedom vs her rights not to be discriminated against.
The solution is to move people around the plane to make it work.
Which is what EasyJet did
People don't realise what nutcases they're dealing with. Here's Angela Merkel being airbrushed out of the Charlie Hebdo march for being a woman. There's a limit to how much you should humour lunatics.....
I fail to see how this alarming case is an argument for men (excepting criminals) to change their behaviour.
He was a police officer with ID to prove it. That isn't a normal thing for men to have.
While I appreciate the point you are making, we haven't got a clue what happened in this situation – we don't know if him being a police officer had any bearing on any abduction – so it seems pretty ill-advised to make such a comment.
But ok for Rosamund Urwin to make a sweeping statement?
I don't know who she is, so I don't know?
She was a columnist for the Evening Standard but don’t know what she is doing now. @squareroot2 post at 8:32 includes her tweet
She says that because the alleged perpetrator may have abused his warrant card we should “stop telling women to change her behaviour. The onus is on men”
Unfortunately she is part of the “all men are rapists” brigade. But that’s the context of @Morris_Dancer ’s post
Ignoring her alleged "all men are rapists" views, the "stop telling women to change their behaviour, the onus is on men" quote is reasonable. I was reading a lot about this last night and the context is not an attack on men, but rather an attack on the still relatively common "she shouldn't have been walking alone, she should have covered up, she should have taken greater precautions" view.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
Is anyone blaming her?
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Nobody is blaming her, no. It's not about that.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
You think that there should be an information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people? Hopefully most know that, and for the ones who don't, I think some helpful advice from the fuzz might be too little too late. Potential victims are the rational ones here, that's why they were targeted with advice.
What 'advice' would have helped Sarah Everard in this situation?
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
But the terrible, terrible circumstances of an authority figure perpetrating this using the victims desire to comply with the law were not known at the time. Given that, and the fact that the attacker was still at large, do you not think it's sensible to advise precautions, to make a second and third attack more difficult for him?
Sadly, many of us seem to have lost the reasoning capability to realise that bearing the responsibility to protect ourselves from the harmful actions of others is not the same as accepting a part of their guilt, as if there was a single guilt pie, and we are helping ourselves to a large slice. A murderer bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. A potential victim bears 100% of the responsibility for making sensible choices. They do not diminish each other.
If we go further down this route, do we just stop advising the public to take sensible precautions against crime for fear of causing offense?
You're making the exact same point as Rosamund Urwin, you know that?
She's saying that the murderer bears 100% of the responsibility. She's highlighting that the victim couldn't have done anything more to protect herself.
It isn't an attack on "all men".
But it does seem to be an attack on 'putting this on women' by advising them to take precautions. That's a stance that is potentially problematical in the future. Anyway, it's not a thing to dwell on - I am sure the Tweet was motivated by very understandable stress at a horrible situation, and it has provoked an interesting debate.
We don't know the details of the Everard case - how the police officer allegedly abducted her. It doesn't sound like it is a "normal" abduction / rape / murder case because of this added factor.
I fear that this will allow some men to dismiss it as a one-off. The method of the abduction / rape / murder may be a little unusual but the predilection of a small number of men to prey on women for the purposes of abduction / rape / murder is not.
What can I as a man with a wife and a daughter do about it? I can Speak Out. Nobody is saying "all men are rapists" because we aren't. But go and ask the women in your lives today if they have experienced fear when alone that the man following them, or the figure in the shadows, or the guys "having fun" by staring or making suggesting comments may be the one who preys on them. ALL the women I know have had this. All of them.
So yes, the onus is on the majority of men to stand up for and speak out for the women in their lives. So that the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority stop. So that the tiny tiny minority of lunatics who want to abduct / rape / murder for sport have nowhere to hide.
Comments
On the other they asked her to move 2 rows forward and gave her a hot drink for free.
The cabin crew are in a situation where two men are being unreasonable, an ok solution is available and they compensated the woman for moving.
I’m generally of the views that a reasonable solution given the facts on the ground and the pressure they are under to hit departure times.
I think it's been brought up again because poor Sarah Everard apparently took every precaution – she wore bright clothing, she advised her boyfriend she was travelling alone, and she stuck to "busy" streets. She couldn't have done anything more.
The attack isn't on 'men' – it's on victim-blaming.
I'm getting my first jab this evening, which I work out gives me a substantial level of immunity for Good Friday and some outdoor socialising.
How I hate wishing my life away. Being in prison must be something like this.
It wasn't her problem to fix.
I know numbers of people who have been furloughed on 80% of basic, where basic was about 70% of normal earnings. So they have lost almost half.
I have argued for the 2.1% plus a holiday bonus.
It was interesting listening to Angela Rayner this morning - their arguments are not exactly strong yet.
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/pay-deals-2021-forecast-private-sector/
A 1% pay rise is indefensible.
I have seen someone (a journalist, apparently) suggesting an actual police officer used a real piece of ID to get close to someone for the purposes of a horrific crime.
99% of men can't do anything to alter their behaviour in the light of that because we don't have police uniforms, cars, or warrant cards. Urwin has an irrational take on this.
https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/1369932006428135428?s=20
I don't think that majoring on Our Beloved NHS during the forthcoming election campaign is a tactical mistake by Labour - far from it, it's an obvious choice and it's something they can all unite around - but exactly how much of an impact it will have remains to be seen.
This is not about people blaming Sarah Everard, it's about a culture where women are warned to take precautions more often than men are warned against attacking women.
Now of course it's sensible for everyone to take precautions, but the point these people are making is that in an ideal world it shouldn't be for women to take precautions, it should be for (primarily) male attackers to not attack...
You could debate the value of such commentary, I personally don't think it really adds anything, but it's really not what you think it is.
I would have done exactly the same in her shoes.
Any normal person knows attacking women - in any way, not just this most horrendous example - is wrong and not something right needed people do. But in the end we do not live in an 'ideal world' we live in this one and in this one what we need is to provide protection for women in addition to helping them to help themselves.
There is no amount of education (either of men or of women) that would have protected someone from a deranged authority figure abusing their symbols of authority in this way.
It's a more general point about how the natural response to such attacks is for women to act more carefully – to avoid walking alone, to wear bright clothing, to stick to busy areas at night, etc. All sensible precautions of course, but the point is that the emphasis AFTER such attacks is on women changing their behaviour, and not the actual attackers themselves.
Like I said, I'm unsure how much value it adds to the debate but it's not about warrant cards etc..
If they'd spoken the same way about, say, an ethnic minority, they'd have been rightly vilified.
If you're locked down you're locked down. However it is.
Ross and Sarwar ratings poor with a suggestion that Scottish voters don't really know who they are. I'm not convinced getting to know either of them better will do much for their respective parties.
https://twitter.com/thetimesscot/status/1369921390711889927?s=20
In other news..
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1369553656467623938?s=20
I've got the 4 complainants as Murdo Fraser, Lord Foulkes, Baroness Ruth and Cole-Hamilton.
Kneejerk from Rosamund?
https://twitter.com/DaveKeating/status/1369895381732106242?s=20
What he's alleged to have done is beyond horrific and the only argument for non use of the death penalty is the fact the state can make mistakes.
Bipartisanship is alive and well - within the Democratic party. The Republican right will not compromise an inch, even with their own moderates.
GlaxoSmithKline antibody drug reduces death by 85pc
A monoclonal antibody drug reduces hospital admission or death from Covid-19 by 85%, the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has announced.
The drug, called VIR-7831, is a new treatment for people with mild to moderate illness, and the study has been so successful that it has been stopped early.
GSK and its partner, Vir Biotechnology, plan to immediately seek an emergency use authorisation in the United States and approval in other countries, including potentially in the UK.
Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced molecules that mimic human antibodies.
The global phase 3 clinical trial based its initial analysis on data from 583 patients at risk of hospital admission.
GSK said VIR-7831 works in two ways - by blocking the virus's entry into healthy cells and also clearing infected cells.
The way she's phrased it looks like she's blaming all men, which is one of her hobby-horses, and trying to crowbar that into this tragedy isn't going to land well.
But no, besides Ireland whom it's in our own self interest to help, we absolutely should not divert our excess doses meant for Covax to wealthy nations that are only struggling because of tardiness and penny pinching.
Not unless they match our generosity with even more generosity towards Covax to compensate.
She isn't saying the 28 million or so men should have done something to "stop the attack". They're saying that if we want to stop violence against women, the onus is on men to stop attacking women and not for women to take greater and greater precautions.
I'm a man and this isn't an attack on me. Why are you viewing it as an attack on you?
Householders and car owners are often given advice on how to avoid burglaries, don't leave valuables on display etc.
Do you object to that advice as its the same sort of thing because obviously telling people not to steal isn't going to do a damn bit of good. You won't change the behaviour of bad guys or girls.
The continued attempts to deflect blame by scapegoating the UK are sad and pathetic. It's grievance mongering against a smaller neighbour. It's a bit like, say, if Scotland had fallen off in 2014 and Westminster had immediately started to find excuses to blame the Scots for all of our problems.
Perhaps you mean "if we want to stop violence against women, the onus is on some men (and some women) to stop attacking some women" . Wouldn`t be particularly illuminating though.
I know it isn't, but that's how that reads.
The point people like Rosamund Urwin are making, but perhaps phrased in an inflammatory way, is that someone like Sarah Everard couldn't physically have done anything more. She couldn't have reasonably taken any more precautions – that's why it's so scary. Therefore the response can only be that we need to tackle the root cause – stopping men attacking women to begin with.
I'm not saying there should be an "information campaign telling men not to abduct and murder people". What a ridiculous thing to say.
Rosamund Urwin and others are simply making the point that if you want to stop this happening, the only way is for men to stop attacking women.
Giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is not victim blaming its just giving the only useful thing that might make a difference.
I don't think anyone here is claiming the girl didnt do all she could have done. Nor are they doing the reheprehensible "she had it coming because....".
Until we get a foolproof pre crime thing going bad people doing bad things are always going to be with us and not much we can do to change that.
The EU leadership is relying solely on their contract for delivery of vaccines. For them to get delivery ahead of us would require at least partial abrogation of our contract, which was agreed long before theirs (even setting aside the fact that we funded the entire development program).
If they had simply requested at the start that we share some of our vaccine as a matter of goodwill, then it's possible the UK might have considered that request. Instead, from the very beginning, they made this a legal dispute, in which all the facts stand against them.
I am not sure whether this is a deliberate strategy to blame us for their failings, simple arrogance, or just incompetence.
Could be a mix of all three.
And, of course, while they persist in this line, it's politically impossible for the UK government to show any generosity.
The poor innocent EU politicians were helpless victims - just like you...
1. He's not to expect the UK to provide export figures, given that it may well not have accurate information because there are no controls on vaccine exports
2. One would expect the EU to export more because it's a global production hub for Pfizer; the UK only manufactures the AZ vaccine at the moment and that's being managed through local centres dotted all over the world (hence the fact that the EU has its own capacity, and the UK is importing some of its AZ requirement from the Serum Institute of India)
There's no basis for complaint here, it's merely blaming the Brits to deflect from the EU's problems, which are a combination of bad luck and bad judgment.
As an unashamed Europhile and Rejoiner I have to admit that the current EU top brass hasn't exactly covered itself in glory over this.
*Actually having just checked I can tell you.
Private sector pay fell by 0.6% in the year ending April 2020
Public sector pay went up by 0.1% over the same period.
And that is before the main impact of Covid was felt
I mean anti littering campaigns might work as people who litter whilst misbehaving might just respond to an information campaign.
But the message of don't kidnap, rape and murder women is a bit like telling people not to bury people under their patio after the Fred West stuff came out.
The worst part about all this is that the murderer was seemingly in the police force. That's an institution that NEEDS implicit trust from the public and it's not going to get it now. Information on how EVERYONE (It's rarer due to the lower prevalence in society generally, but homosexual male serial killers are a thing) should interact and what they should expect from the police is going to have to go out as public information.
I certainly don't disagree that giving potential victims advice on how to minimise their risk is useful. It is, but it wouldn't have helped Sarah Everard.
Like I said, that's the point Rosamund Urwin is making. She is saying that no amount of advice to the victim would have made a blind bit of difference and therefore it's not about women "changing their behavior" but about men changing theirs.
Not all men. Not me and you or @Morris_Dancer, but the attackers themselves.
If the arrested person is guilty then we absolutely need the toughest possible sentence including a full life tariff. No redemption, no second chance. Sarah Everard won't get one.
This sadly is one of those cases - as you cannot remove a warrant card from a serving police office, so the question to be asked is why was he currently still a serving police officer.
That's like saying when an Islamist terrorist blows people up that the only way to stop that is for Muslims to refrain from killing people.
Would you ascribe a terror attack to all Muslims in the way she did to all men?
I can understand why the Commissioner is upset by this, and I have no idea what sort of vetting goes on for the role the accused was doing, but there's always a chance that someone will turn out to be a complete monster.
And Urwin's tweet is crass. If someone tweeted after a terrorist attack that it was "on Muslims" they'd get the same sort of reaction, albeit perhaps from different people.
HeavenBrussels.twitter.com/mattforde/status/1216682020958502912?lang=en
I don't disagree with you though at all, and I think it's highly likely that if the offence is as rumoured then the perpetrator will be getting a very long prison sentence indeed, and rightly so in order to protect the public.
The Singapore Airlines crew asked if the lady would like to move. To First Class.
Sadly, many of us seem to have lost the reasoning capability to realise that bearing the responsibility to protect ourselves from the harmful actions of others is not the same as accepting a part of their guilt, as if there was a single guilt pie, and we are helping ourselves to a large slice. A murderer bears 100% of the responsibility for his actions. A potential victim bears 100% of the responsibility for making sensible choices. They do not diminish each other.
If we go further down this route, do we just stop advising the public to take sensible precautions against crime for fear of causing offense?
You're completely misinterpreting her point.
https://twitter.com/RupertMyers/status/1369943314498265090?s=20
The comparisons with Muslims and terrorist attacks is a fair one.
She's saying that the murderer bears 100% of the responsibility. She's highlighting that the victim couldn't have done anything more to protect herself.
It isn't an attack on "all men".
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1369938468336504832?s=20
https://twitter.com/raykwong/status/1369704809918472193
But people don't need to get so triggered by it. It isn't a personal attack. It isn't about hating men.
Steven Levitt (the economist) wrote an excellent paper on this in 2004 (below) which addressed the dramatic fall in crime in the States. See pages 14-21.
pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
https://twitter.com/JewishChron/status/1369906201249599491?s=20
One murderer does not make up men.
If Nick Griffin Tweeted that the onus is on Muslims to change, would you defend that?
If we accept that it's inevitable, in the same way that the rain is inevitable, then the emphasis is on what precautions you can take (not walking alone, not drinking too much, etc) just as you would with the weather (check the forecast, bring an umbrella).
If you don't accept the status quo as inevitable then the emphasis is on what you can do to change the culture.
Here the event is the appalling death of this young woman and the topic of wider debate triggered is male violence and intimidation against women and girls. That it's worse in many other countries - at truly horrific levels in some parts of the world - does not mean things are fine on this score here. They aren't. It's a problem. It needs to be addressed, and part of this is asking whether there is too much expectation on women to make adjustments to "manage" the problems they encounter, as opposed to a zero tolerance for the male behaviours which cause the problems in the first place. There will be different views on this. That's why it's a debate.
That's the context. It is not about some feminazi telling you (or me) that we have to stop posing as coppers and stalking women on Clapham Common.
I've admitted it wasn't phrased well but there's no need to get so triggered by it.
They will probably start delivering in really large quantities next month, rather than this.
There is a reason terms like 'best efforts' are used in contracts for the supply of novel medicines. Biological entities in particular are not simple to reliably manufacture in bulk.
https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=religious+jews+airbrush+women+out+of+charlie+hebdo+march&fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&type=dhm_A0JQ1_set_bfr__alt__ddc_srch_searchpulse_net&hspart=domaindev&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&imgurl=https://www.mediaite.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/featured-photoshop.jpg#id=0&iurl=https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/54b63db5dd0895d5278b45cb-960/ultra-orthodox_jewish_newspaper_edits_female_world_leaders_out_of_charlie_hebdo_march___mediaite.png&action=click
Hoping Ferrari do well as I have a small number of free bets on them to have the fastest testing time.
I fear that this will allow some men to dismiss it as a one-off. The method of the abduction / rape / murder may be a little unusual but the predilection of a small number of men to prey on women for the purposes of abduction / rape / murder is not.
What can I as a man with a wife and a daughter do about it? I can Speak Out. Nobody is saying "all men are rapists" because we aren't. But go and ask the women in your lives today if they have experienced fear when alone that the man following them, or the figure in the shadows, or the guys "having fun" by staring or making suggesting comments may be the one who preys on them. ALL the women I know have had this. All of them.
So yes, the onus is on the majority of men to stand up for and speak out for the women in their lives. So that the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority stop. So that the tiny tiny minority of lunatics who want to abduct / rape / murder for sport have nowhere to hide.
Let's over-analyse this!