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.
Yes that is used a lot by racists to further their racist agendas.
Do you say that yourself? Do you approve or disapprove of that?
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.
Yes, I'm reliably informed that the J&J shortage will effect the US and UK proposed supply too, pushing volume deliveries back to late April. No bitching from either party thoigh, just a grin acceptance that things get delayed.
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
Did they not also observe the failure to deliver the UK's 'promised' vaccines before Christmas ?
By a huge number. Pfizer as well have missed their proposed delivery schedule for the last 6 weeks. Their odd characterisation of the EU being the only party to suffer from delivery delays shows that this is nothing more than political blame shifting.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
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.
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
Does religious freedom extend to having the ability to determine who sits next to you on public transport?
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.
Yes, you're right, and of course not only in order to discourage murderers - just not wanting to make other people feel uncomfortable is reason enough. I cross the road rather than walk behind a slow-moving woman on a deserted street - probably she wouldn't care, but she might, and it's no trouble. And suggestive comments aren't necessarily evil but should be reserved for people you know well enough to be confident how they'll be received. My wife responded to a wolf-whistle from a builder by cheerily saying "You shouldn't be on a building site if you need glasses" but you can't count on every stranger being that much at ease.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Seems like the government has finally decided that we don't need to be a net importer of wind turbines with this new deal to bring manufacturing of them to the UK. Good news for us (specifically Teeside), bad news for the Belgians who we import them from right now. They lose a major client and reliable buyer and gain a competitor for global contracts at a time when offshore wind is considered a reasonably good way out of climate change.
New data showing that for those who've had Covid, a single vaccine dose gives an immune response as good as that in individuals who haven't been infected, and have received two vaccines doses.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of 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..
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Seems like the government has finally decided that we don't need to be a net importer of wind turbines with this new deal to bring manufacturing of them to the UK. Good news for us (specifically Teeside), bad news for the Belgians who we import them from right now. They lose a major client and reliable buyer and gain a competitor for global contracts at a time when offshore wind is considered a reasonably good way out of climate change.
Sounds like fantastic news. With the UK being a leading wind power it makes a lot of sense to manufacture them at home - and there's going to be a lot of demand for these in coming decades too.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Sorry but no, its on the murderers to change.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
By the way, why is virtually everyone assuming the suspect is guilty, with the odd "alleged" thrown in? The police say it's very worrying and a thorough review is called for, and we're all debating the consequences of a serving officer committing murder. I have no idea about the details so maybe I'm missing something, but some suspension of judgment until the trial is usually a good idea.
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Sorry but no, its on the murderers to change.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
For god sake man. When I said >the men< I obviously mean "the men who commit murders". It's like you are incapable of seeing any nuance today.
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.
Very well said, Rochdale.
The objectification and belittlement of women. To recognize this as one of the very biggest problems we have in the world is not to say that all men are wannabe or actual abusers, rapists and murderers.
If it's not possible to discuss this without a "War on Woke" angle, it really would be quite depressing.
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.
Tartan Tories.
Just to check that your not one of those limited people who say 'haggis!' and 'deep fried mars bars!' when anything Scottish comes up and thinks it's bitingly satirical, what do you mean by 'Tartan Tories'?
Also, like Putin, the assiduously court the least sophisticated section of society having lost the most sophisticated through corruption and incompetence.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Sorry but no, its on the murderers to change.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
For god sake man. When I said >the men< I obviously mean "the men who commit murders". It's like you are incapable of seeing any nuance today.
Again if instead of "men" it said "Muslims need to change" would you be OK with 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.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
But the issue here - is that nothing anyone could do would have done anything to avoid this particular issue.
There are no changes in behavior that people could make that would have avoided this story occurring.
For the issue is with a particular single person who was in a position of authority and has seemingly completely abused it.
And you can't ask for people to change when there is no change they could make that would help avoid the incident that occurred.
So asking for people to change to solve something that is impossible to solve doesn't help anyone.
Now in 2 years time after the trials and the investigations that will occur after the trial it is possible that something will be discovered that might have prevented what occurred from occurring. But that is 2 years away - for the moment what can anyone do to stop a policeman abusing the position of authority they have been given.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Sorry but no, its on the murderers to change.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
For god sake man. When I said >the men< I obviously mean "the men who commit murders". It's like you are incapable of seeing any nuance today.
Again if instead of "men" it said "Muslims need to change" would you be OK with that?
Yes or no?
Yes of course.
We don't blame victims of muslim terror. It's for the terrorists to stop committing terror attacks. That's the point she is making.
You've just got it into your head that people are blaming "all men" when they just aren't.
You are literally attacking something that doesn't exist.
I've admitted it hasn't been worded well and adds very little to the debate, but the fact remains that she isn't attacking "all men". Ergo this is a pointless argument.
By the way, why is virtually everyone assuming the suspect is guilty, with the odd "alleged" thrown in? The police say it's very worrying and a thorough review is called for, and we're all debating the consequences of a serving officer committing murder. I have no idea about the details so maybe I'm missing something, but some suspension of judgment until the trial is usually a good idea.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Sorry but no, its on the murderers to change.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
For god sake man. When I said >the men< I obviously mean "the men who commit murders". It's like you are incapable of seeing any nuance today.
So men who commit murder need to change? Hmm love to see how that works as that is a story from time immemorial (well not quite as the first example is in Genesis chapter 4 rather than chapter 1).
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.
An excellent comment. The "all men are rapists" meme is hardly ever meant literally. What it means is that for a woman it is impossible to distinguish between men who are a real threat and those who aren't. So my daughter, for example, is subjected to casual sexism frequently when she's out and about. She's a tough cookie, but the point she makes is that it's impossible to know what level of potential threat the 'banter' she is subjected to constitutes. Those who physically attack women don't self-identify, so all men have to be seen as potential attackers, although she knows full well that the vast majority are fine.
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
You think there is no link between male attitudes to women and male violence against 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
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
Sorry but no, its on the murderers to change.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
For god sake man. When I said >the men< I obviously mean "the men who commit murders". It's like you are incapable of seeing any nuance today.
Again if instead of "men" it said "Muslims need to change" would you be OK with that?
Yes or no?
Yes of course.
We don't blame victims of muslim terror. It's for the terrorists to stop committing terror attacks. That's the point she is making.
You've just got it into your head that people are blaming "all men" when they just aren't.
You are literally attacking something that doesn't exist.
I've admitted it hasn't been worded well and adds very little to the debate, but the fact remains that she isn't attacking "all men". Ergo this is a pointless argument.
Well, having read a number of Rosamund Unwin columns over the years, I wouldn't dismiss the accusation that it's "all men" out of hand.
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.
I'm not triggered, I'm consistent. Wrong is wrong.
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
But she isn't blaming men... She's blaming individuals...
Please quote where she says anything about individuals instead of men ...
It's because you're misunderstanding her tweet and choosing to interpret it how you want. I've literally explained this multiple times.
1. Some men attack women. 2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed. 3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
But the issue here - is that nothing anyone could do would have done anything to avoid this particular issue.
There are no changes in behavior that people could make that would have avoided this story occurring.
For the issue is with a particular single person who was in a position of authority and has seemingly completely abused it.
And you can't ask for people to change when there is no change they could make that would help avoid the incident that occurred.
So asking for people to change to solve something that is impossible to solve doesn't help anyone.
Now in 2 years time after the trials and the investigations that will occur after the trial it is possible that something will be discovered that might have prevented what occurred from occurring. But that is 2 years away - for the moment what can anyone do to stop a policeman abusing the position of authority they have been given.
People aren't asking men to change in general, they are saying, just like you're saying, that it is the murderers and the rapists who need to change.
Of course you're right that stating the above doesn't solve anything or help anything but people are reacting emotionally to the facts of this case, like you said, where the precautions were useless.
If all precautions a woman can reasonably take are sometimes pointless, all that can be said is that the men who commit these atrocities need to be change, not that women need to take even greater precautions.
Is it stating the obvious? Yes. Is it an attack on "all men"? No.
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
You think there is no link between male attitudes to women and male violence against women?
For sure, but not this kind of thing. That said, things like flashing and upskirting should be taken seriously as they can often lead to this sort of thing.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
Also, like Putin, the assiduously court the least sophisticated section of society having lost the most sophisticated through corruption and incompetence.
Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists are the utensils to Putin's ambition of a neutered EU and a neutered UK. Well done thickheads! Putin must love his Useful Idiots.
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.
Yes that is used a lot by racists to further their racist agendas.
Do you say that yourself? Do you approve or disapprove of that?
I think you know the answer to that, but: no, disapprove. Obviously.
Mr. kinabalu, men are a majority of violent crime victims.
One problem with the blanket approach of 'men need to change' is that it's happy to acknowledge the fact that perpetrators of violent crimes (including rape) are likely to be men but there's scant regard given to the fact men are likelier to be victims of (non-sexual) violent crime.
Most people are happy to consider men potential criminals but more reluctant to see them as potential victims (this isn't as bad as it was, but used to be atrocious with regards to domestic abuse).
Also, like Putin, the assiduously court the least sophisticated section of society having lost the most sophisticated through corruption and incompetence.
Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists are the utensils to Putin's ambition of a neutered EU and a neutered UK. Well done thickheads! Putin must love his Useful Idiots.
Morning Nigel. How is life in your strange little fantasy world this morning?
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.
Unwin has form - she’s an activist with specific views.
But I agree that poor Sarah did everything she could reasonably be expected to do. If the story is true then (if possible) his offence could be even worse than another case because of the way he apparently misused his warrant card
Seems like the government has finally decided that we don't need to be a net importer of wind turbines with this new deal to bring manufacturing of them to the UK. Good news for us (specifically Teeside), bad news for the Belgians who we import them from right now. They lose a major client and reliable buyer and gain a competitor for global contracts at a time when offshore wind is considered a reasonably good way out of climate change.
Sounds like fantastic news. With the UK being a leading wind power it makes a lot of sense to manufacture them at home - and there's going to be a lot of demand for these in coming decades too.
Genuinely spectacular news. That the UK hasn't been smashing investment into renewables was baffling (until you remember all those NIMBYs and the twatty shire Tories who represent them). SO yes, great news for manufacturing and the environment and Teesside.
I am sure* the timing absolutely had nothing to do with the election. They needn't have worried - Houchen will win by a landslide over Ms JJJacobs and deservedly so. Perhaps a payrise for young Ben? The Tees Valley Mayor was conceived under Osborne as a non-job and comes with a suitably low (£35k) salary. As Ben has used his government connections to smash way beyond his actual powers to act as a gatekeeper for stuff that is in other people's remits, why not pay the job an actual salary?
Mr. kinabalu, men are a majority of violent crime victims.
One problem with the blanket approach of 'men need to change' is that it's happy to acknowledge the fact that perpetrators of violent crimes (including rape) are likely to be men but there's scant regard given to the fact men are likelier to be victims of (non-sexual) violent crime.
Most people are happy to consider men potential criminals but more reluctant to see them as potential victims (this isn't as bad as it was, but used to be atrocious with regards to domestic abuse).
But Morris_Dancer, with all due respect you are again playing the victim by interpreting "men need to change" as an attack on you personally.
It isn't.
The vast majority of the perpetuators of violent crimes are men. Yes ok. Men can also be victims of violent crime. Yes ok. That doesn't change anything.
You're getting lost in the literal. This is a poorly worded tweet, but "men need to change" is just shorthand for "men who commit violent crimes need to change". There is no need to treat this as anything other than that.
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 suspect that’s the maximum that the cabin crew could do!
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.
Well that’s clearly not the case and so if that happened then there would absolutely be a basis for legal action
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
No, I don't think Jo Cox was killed at random. She was assassinated. And you may have a point about the circumstances in which it happened.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
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?
Also, like Putin, the assiduously court the least sophisticated section of society having lost the most sophisticated through corruption and incompetence.
Are we talking about the Tories, the EU Commission, or both ?
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
No, I don't think Jo Cox was killed at random. She was assassinated. And you may have a point about the circumstances in which it happened.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
Yes, I'm not sure that a psychopath rapist/murderer really cares about catcalling or seeks to justify their horrific crimes because they heard some fat bloke on scaffolding catcall women.
Mr. kinabalu, men are a majority of violent crime victims.
One problem with the blanket approach of 'men need to change' is that it's happy to acknowledge the fact that perpetrators of violent crimes (including rape) are likely to be men but there's scant regard given to the fact men are likelier to be victims of (non-sexual) violent crime.
Most people are happy to consider men potential criminals but more reluctant to see them as potential victims (this isn't as bad as it was, but used to be atrocious with regards to domestic abuse).
But Morris_Dancer, with all due respect you are again playing the victim by interpreting "men need to change" as an attack on you personally.
It isn't.
The vast majority of the perpetuators of violent crimes are men. Yes ok. Men can also be victims of violent crime. Yes ok. That doesn't change anything.
You're getting lost in the literal. This is a poorly worded tweet, but "men need to change" is just shorthand for "men who commit violent crimes need to change". There is no need to treat this as anything other than that.
Ok, maybe dancing on pinheads here, but surely it is "violent people need to change", which is a bit of a "no shit Sherlock statement. Without wishing to join the large group of people who easily take offence, I think the tweet is easy to interpret as pretty insulting to all males who don't involve themselves in violence of any kind.
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?
But many (most?) men don't seem to know how to behave in order to enable a woman to assess risk appropriately in situations such as "walking home" or "getting on the bus", or "being in/outside the pub". Normal situations.
They (we/I) behave without sufficient thought in terms of proximity, speech, etc. making it impossible to tell the rare "risky" situation from the common "not risky" situation. This means women either need to constrain themselves to a ludicrously unfair extent, or expose themselves relatively more to that unlikely but ever-present "risky" situation.
We (and by we, I largely mean 'women') spend time teaching women how to assess and minimize these risks, and we spend damn all time teaching men what to do to make that easier. That is what is meant by "men need to take [more] responsibility."
If you think otherwise, just look at the outpouring from perfectly normal men in the last few days of "I had no idea that these common behaviours of mine are intimidating/frightening/constraining".
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
It feels like a Brandenburg airport in the making. It could be that the rumoured UK gigafactory actually opens before the Berlin one.
I never quite got why Tesla decided Germany - if you know how the country works it made little sense.
Here once you've got planning permission you are good to go and I suspect planning permission for Tesla would be a formality. Mr Musk where would you like the Freeport to be placed?
Now we would prefer a red wall region but take your pick..
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
Do you the the investment allowance in the budget is helping? Or is it coincidental?
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.
I think the behaviour that you describe is bad in its own right.
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
A counter-argument:
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
Very good explanation. Also to throw in another point. That even when women are celebrated, scratch the surface and it's often something else. Something altogether different and not benign. "Trophy" wives. "History is all about the pursuit of beautiful women by powerful men." "Men test ideas. Women test men". "Wish she'd stop banging on. She's only famous cos of her looks." That whole can of worms. I think it's possible to recognize these things without being at all pious and woke, or unworldly.
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 agree, although that would have been religious discrimination
FFS we are talking about someone being asked to move two rows!
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
It feels like a Brandenburg airport in the making. It could be that the rumoured UK gigafactory actually opens before the Berlin one.
I never quite got why Tesla decided Germany - if you know how the country works it made little sense.
Here once you've got planning permission you are good to go and I suspect planning permission for Tesla would be a formality. Mr Musk where would you like the Freeport to be placed?
I think it was to turn Tesla into a domestic brand for German buyers who are notoriously picky over which brands they will buy. Ultimately that doesn't look like it will work and construction of the factory is stuck in 17 layers of planning bureaucracy.
No, I don't think Jo Cox was killed at random. She was assassinated. And you may have a point about the circumstances in which it happened.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
You have missed the point I was making. I am absolutely NOT saying that catcalling develops into abduction / rape / murder. However it does two things that are problematic.
1. It puts women on edge. All women that I know - ALL of them - are openly talking about how they have had moments of fear. The man walking in lockstep behind them. The figure in the shadows. The catcalling from "lads". To name a few of the "I didn't know" or "its just a bit of fun" actions from men - likely unwitting in the case of walking behind - that make women fear for their safety. Stop the "bit of fun" catcalling and we stop subjecting half the population to harassment and fear.
2. It provides cover for the genuine lunatics. Odd behaviour towards women is less visible when a larger minority think women are totty for them to play with. If the catcalling and sexual harassment and objectifying stops because in itself the behaviour is Wrong, it makes the real lunatics easier to spot with their far darker views.
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.
Yes that is used a lot by racists to further their racist agendas.
Do you say that yourself? Do you approve or disapprove of that?
I think you know the answer to that, but: no, disapprove. Obviously.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
Do you the the investment allowance in the budget is helping? Or is it coincidental?
I think this would all have happened anyway tbh, the allowance is to help existing companies spend their existing money rather than foreign companies establish themselves here.
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.
Urwin has form for blaming “the patriarchy” for rape
Also, like Putin, the assiduously court the least sophisticated section of society having lost the most sophisticated through corruption and incompetence.
Brexiteers and Scottish Nationalists are the utensils to Putin's ambition of a neutered EU and a neutered UK. Well done thickheads! Putin must love his Useful Idiots.
Morning Nigel. How is life in your strange little fantasy world this morning?
Sorry if you took offence Richard as you are my favourite Brexit supporter! Fact is that Putin wanted Brexit. Whether he influenced the vote is open to debate, and I for one am happy to have to live with the outcome. Putin also definitely wants Scottish succession. None of that is fantasy.
As for my fantasy world, I regret I will not even share that with PB members, broadminded though many may be, but I assure them it is all legal!
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.
Tartan Tories.
Just to check that your not one of those limited people who say 'haggis!' and 'deep fried mars bars!' when anything Scottish comes up and thinks it's bitingly satirical, what do you mean by 'Tartan Tories'?
It was a joke.
"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 is a running joke that Tories are the baby eaters.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
They did the same with the water rights, and that got sorted out. It's like everything else Tesla does - they take risks in order to move fast. Sometimes it doesn't work; most of the time it does.
But it's a reasonable assumption they'd have built it in the UK had we not Brexited.
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 think you could say that all Muslims need to challenge the twisted interpretation of their faith that justifies such actions
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.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
Do you the the investment allowance in the budget is helping? Or is it coincidental?
I think this would all have happened anyway tbh, the allowance is to help existing companies spend their existing money rather than foreign companies establish themselves here.
If a foreign company does a new and massive investment in the UK like a gigafactory then can they take advantage of the investment allowance to offset future taxes? Or does it not work that way or not make any difference?
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.
Mr. kinabalu, men are a majority of violent crime victims.
One problem with the blanket approach of 'men need to change' is that it's happy to acknowledge the fact that perpetrators of violent crimes (including rape) are likely to be men but there's scant regard given to the fact men are likelier to be victims of (non-sexual) violent crime.
Most people are happy to consider men potential criminals but more reluctant to see them as potential victims (this isn't as bad as it was, but used to be atrocious with regards to domestic abuse).
Men are twice as likely to be victims of violent crime - but about four times as likely to be perpetrators.
By the way, why is virtually everyone assuming the suspect is guilty, with the odd "alleged" thrown in? The police say it's very worrying and a thorough review is called for, and we're all debating the consequences of a serving officer committing murder. I have no idea about the details so maybe I'm missing something, but some suspension of judgment until the trial is usually a good idea.
Is it the case that the Scottish Greens are only fielding Regional List Candidates?
Am I correct that this is what they have done before?
They've always stood in at least one constituency I think. This time round they are standing a candidate in two constituencies in the Lothian region, Edinburgh Central and Edinburgh Northern and Leith, but not the other six.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
They did the same with the water rights, and that got sorted out. It's like everything else Tesla does - they take risks in order to move fast. Sometimes it doesn't work; most of the time it does.
But it's a reasonable assumption they'd have built it in the UK had we not Brexited.
From the look if it they still are planning to build in the UK, despite Brexit.
Not sure why you'd assume they'd build in the UK first had we not Brexited. Germany is the car manufacturing hub of Europe so they might rightly have assumed either way that Germany was the best place to invest in first. As it happens it looks like they're now planning to build in the UK anyway so what are you worrying about?
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
Does religious freedom extend to having the ability to determine who sits next to you on public transport?
I think "religious freedom vs the right to be not discriminated against" is a false framing. These are not to me equivalents where a difficult and fine balance needs to be struck. The latter prevails in all cases. I really can't think of an instance where it shouldn't. Perhaps there are edge cases but none spring to mind.
Is it the case that the Scottish Greens are only fielding Regional List Candidates?
Am I correct that this is what they have done before?
No and No
Their contesting Edinburgh Central in 2016 let Ruth Davidson come through the middle, which may be thought of as a good or a bad thing depending on your pov.
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
They did the same with the water rights, and that got sorted out. It's like everything else Tesla does - they take risks in order to move fast. Sometimes it doesn't work; most of the time it does.
But it's a reasonable assumption they'd have built it in the UK had we not Brexited.
True, but Tesla is so profitable and growing so fast that the UK may get a Gigafactory or maybe something smaller at some stage despite Brexit. The fast rising part of the elctric car 'S' curve adoption will need some more Gigafactories, provided the battery shortage is addressed. After India probably.
I'd have far more confidence in this if we were keeping corporation tax competitive, creating generous investment allowances, driving well-funded R&D, supporting adult education/apprenticeships, leading regulatory reform and cutting employer's NI rates so we were as attractive as a mother-f-er.
But, it feels like mixed messages to me at present.
My question when reading the article was “Who is Gordon Lindhurst?” I have never seen his name in the media or asking a question at FMQs. Maybe the Lothian tories don’t know who he is either?
In other news Tesla seem worried about being left behind in the UK market. I do wonder whether they regret picking Berlin now for their European site. Anyway it looks as though Tesla are scouting for land in the UK for an even larger gigafactory than what is under construction in Berlin. It's a shame we're two years late to the party, but it does seem as though the government is finally catching up to future needs of the UK economy, albeit a bit slowly.
I think Tesla have problems in Germany - they started building before permission was granted and it's not gone down well
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
It feels like a Brandenburg airport in the making. It could be that the rumoured UK gigafactory actually opens before the Berlin one.
I never quite got why Tesla decided Germany - if you know how the country works it made little sense....
Because, for the next few years at least, BMW, Mercedes, Audi etc are their competition, until they can build cheaper mass market models. No doubt there was a certain amount of cultural ignorance involved, too.
And there's Brexit, of course, which at the time the decision was being made introduced massive uncertainty over the ease of selling into the EU from the UK.
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.
Tartan Tories.
Just to check that your not one of those limited people who say 'haggis!' and 'deep fried mars bars!' when anything Scottish comes up and thinks it's bitingly satirical, what do you mean by 'Tartan Tories'?
It was a joke.
"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 is a running joke that Tories are the baby eaters.
For a modest proposal it has had remarkable longevity.
Is it the case that the Scottish Greens are only fielding Regional List Candidates?
Am I correct that this is what they have done before?
They've always stood in at least one constituency I think. This time round they are standing a candidate in two constituencies in the Lothian region, Edinburgh Central and Edinburgh Northern and Leith, but not the other six.
Don't know about other regions.
Edinburgh Greens site is still showing Andy Wightman as standing for them in one of the Edinburgh seats which shows an admirable conservation of energy when it comes to editing if nothing else.
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 agree, although that would have been religious discrimination
FFS we are talking about someone being asked to move two rows!
Illegally because she was a woman.
Its not OK to harrass people and expect them to move just because they're a woman.
Your religious freedom applies to yourself and yourself alone. It does not apply to getting others to bend to your beliefs. If you want to practice your religion then do so in your own temple, don't expect others to bow down before 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
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.
Yes that is used a lot by racists to further their racist agendas.
Do you say that yourself? Do you approve or disapprove of that?
I think you know the answer to that, but: no, disapprove. Obviously.
Good I'm glad we can agree on that. 👍
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Well said. Quite where some people get the idea that it's acceptable to blame half the population (!) for the crimes of those with whom they share nothing but immutable characteristics - whereas they would never dream of blaming any other group in the same manner - is a mystery. As well as a fairly glaring example of hypocrisy.
This just serves to show how weird Twitter is: anyone can commit a rape, of course - just as anyone can commit a murder.
If the point is that every woman thinks every man is a credible prospective assailant, then I think that's just crazy. You can't live your life like that.
It'd be like me assuming every woman was out to clean me out, or every business trying to swindle me. You should be savvy, of course, but you have to give people the benefit of the doubt.
Comments
Do you say that yourself? Do you approve or disapprove of that?
The idea that it has anything to do with psychopathic rapists, though, is utterly absurd.
https://twitter.com/David_K_Clark/status/1369941478642958336?s=20
People are individuals. The individual who is to blame is the individual, not men, not Muslims, not any other class of people.
https://twitter.com/LeaskyHT/status/1369919872302518273?s=20
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1369770841907425282
SNP down 6% on the constituency vote and Scottish Labour up 4% and SNP down 3% on the list and Scottish Conservatives up 3%
https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1369907216749363206?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1369946425379983367?s=20
https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1369628467394936832
1. Some men attack women.
2. Women take all reasonable precautions and still get harmed.
3. Ergo it's >the men< who need to change, not the women.
You're interpreting it that she means that ALL men need to change, but I highly doubt that's what she means.
It's much more likely that she means that the men who attack women need to change.
Like I said, I don't think it adds anything to the debate, but it isn't an attack on me and you and men generally.
I ask one more time if she had said if this was a Muslim killer "it is on Muslims to change", rather than it is on murderers or terrorists to change, would you approve of that so blithely?
When Jo Cox was murdered by Thomas Mair in the run up to the Brexit vote, do you think his choice of victim was made at random? Of course not: he had been surrounded by increasingly vicious rhetoric that painted Remain MPs as traitors & fifth columnists. Those who spent their time online thundering on about traitorous Remainers clearly had no intention of inciting murder, yet when those words fell on susceptible ears we all know the result.
In a similar fashion, as RochdaleP says: the the "its just a bit of fun" catcallers and starers and lewd comment minority provide cover for those who are at risk of being tipped over the edge onto outright violence towards women. When those individuals find themselves surrounded by men who do those things, the message they hear repeated over and over again is that women are things, objects to be exploited. This is why it’s everybody’s responsibility to push back on that kind behaviour - not just because it’s unpleasant for the targets in and of itself, but also because it is the misogynist swamp in which the violent sociopaths swim - it’s the environment that tells them that their behaviour is OK, even approved of.
Drain the swamp.
The objectification and belittlement of women. To recognize this as one of the very biggest problems we have in the world is not to say that all men are wannabe or actual abusers, rapists and murderers.
If it's not possible to discuss this without a "War on Woke" angle, it really would be quite depressing.
Yes or no?
There are no changes in behavior that people could make that would have avoided this story occurring.
For the issue is with a particular single person who was in a position of authority and has seemingly completely abused it.
And you can't ask for people to change when there is no change they could make that would help avoid the incident that occurred.
So asking for people to change to solve something that is impossible to solve doesn't help anyone.
Now in 2 years time after the trials and the investigations that will occur after the trial it is possible that something will be discovered that might have prevented what occurred from occurring. But that is 2 years away - for the moment what can anyone do to stop a policeman abusing the position of authority they have been given.
We don't blame victims of muslim terror. It's for the terrorists to stop committing terror attacks. That's the point she is making.
You've just got it into your head that people are blaming "all men" when they just aren't.
You are literally attacking something that doesn't exist.
I've admitted it hasn't been worded well and adds very little to the debate, but the fact remains that she isn't attacking "all men". Ergo this is a pointless argument.
Of course you're right that stating the above doesn't solve anything or help anything but people are reacting emotionally to the facts of this case, like you said, where the precautions were useless.
If all precautions a woman can reasonably take are sometimes pointless, all that can be said is that the men who commit these atrocities need to be change, not that women need to take even greater precautions.
Is it stating the obvious? Yes. Is it an attack on "all men"? No.
https://electrek.co/2021/03/10/tesla-gigafactory-berlin-pushing-production-soon-despite-precarious-permit-situation/
was the first story google pointed me at but there will be a fair few more as I remember this from last year.
https://twitter.com/BuckieDim/status/1369951898082611200?s=20
One problem with the blanket approach of 'men need to change' is that it's happy to acknowledge the fact that perpetrators of violent crimes (including rape) are likely to be men but there's scant regard given to the fact men are likelier to be victims of (non-sexual) violent crime.
Most people are happy to consider men potential criminals but more reluctant to see them as potential victims (this isn't as bad as it was, but used to be atrocious with regards to domestic abuse).
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1369913611443916803?s=20
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1369913613989928960?s=20
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1369913615415992324?s=20
But I agree that poor Sarah did everything she could reasonably be expected to do. If the story is true then (if possible) his offence could be even worse than another case because of the way he apparently misused his warrant card
I am sure* the timing absolutely had nothing to do with the election. They needn't have worried - Houchen will win by a landslide over Ms JJJacobs and deservedly so. Perhaps a payrise for young Ben? The Tees Valley Mayor was conceived under Osborne as a non-job and comes with a suitably low (£35k) salary. As Ben has used his government connections to smash way beyond his actual powers to act as a gatekeeper for stuff that is in other people's remits, why not pay the job an actual salary?
It isn't.
The vast majority of the perpetuators of violent crimes are men. Yes ok. Men can also be victims of violent crime. Yes ok. That doesn't change anything.
You're getting lost in the literal. This is a poorly worded tweet, but "men need to change" is just shorthand for "men who commit violent crimes need to change". There is no need to treat this as anything other than that.
We don't know the details of what's gone on in the current case, but it's possible (likely?) that this young woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time (though the killer may have identified her as a target before the night in question).
What makes some men behave like this? I don't know, but I'm not sure attributing it to catcalling is particularly helpful.
They (we/I) behave without sufficient thought in terms of proximity, speech, etc. making it impossible to tell the rare "risky" situation from the common "not risky" situation. This means women either need to constrain themselves to a ludicrously unfair extent, or expose themselves relatively more to that unlikely but ever-present "risky" situation.
We (and by we, I largely mean 'women') spend time teaching women how to assess and minimize these risks, and we spend damn all time teaching men what to do to make that easier. That is what is meant by "men need to take [more] responsibility."
If you think otherwise, just look at the outpouring from perfectly normal men in the last few days of "I had no idea that these common behaviours of mine are intimidating/frightening/constraining".
Here once you've got planning permission you are good to go and I suspect planning permission for Tesla would be a formality. Mr Musk where would you like the Freeport to be placed?
Now we would prefer a red wall region but take your pick..
Am I correct that this is what they have done before?
FFS we are talking about someone being asked to move two rows!
1. It puts women on edge. All women that I know - ALL of them - are openly talking about how they have had moments of fear. The man walking in lockstep behind them. The figure in the shadows. The catcalling from "lads". To name a few of the "I didn't know" or "its just a bit of fun" actions from men - likely unwitting in the case of walking behind - that make women fear for their safety. Stop the "bit of fun" catcalling and we stop subjecting half the population to harassment and fear.
2. It provides cover for the genuine lunatics. Odd behaviour towards women is less visible when a larger minority think women are totty for them to play with. If the catcalling and sexual harassment and objectifying stops because in itself the behaviour is Wrong, it makes the real lunatics easier to spot with their far darker views.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
As for my fantasy world, I regret I will not even share that with PB members, broadminded though many may be, but I assure them it is all legal!
"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 is a running joke that Tories are the baby eaters.
It's like everything else Tesla does - they take risks in order to move fast. Sometimes it doesn't work; most of the time it does.
But it's a reasonable assumption they'd have built it in the UK had we not Brexited.
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1369724558492762117?s=20
Don't know about other regions.
Not sure why you'd assume they'd build in the UK first had we not Brexited. Germany is the car manufacturing hub of Europe so they might rightly have assumed either way that Germany was the best place to invest in first. As it happens it looks like they're now planning to build in the UK anyway so what are you worrying about?
Their contesting Edinburgh Central in 2016 let Ruth Davidson come through the middle, which may be thought of as a good or a bad thing depending on your pov.
After India probably.
I'd have far more confidence in this if we were keeping corporation tax competitive, creating generous investment allowances, driving well-funded R&D, supporting adult education/apprenticeships, leading regulatory reform and cutting employer's NI rates so we were as attractive as a mother-f-er.
But, it feels like mixed messages to me at present.
Where's the big strat on all this stuff?
No doubt there was a certain amount of cultural ignorance involved, too.
And there's Brexit, of course, which at the time the decision was being made introduced massive uncertainty over the ease of selling into the EU from the UK.
https://www.edinburghgreens.org.uk/news/constituencies-2021/
Its not OK to harrass people and expect them to move just because they're a woman.
Your religious freedom applies to yourself and yourself alone. It does not apply to getting others to bend to your beliefs. If you want to practice your religion then do so in your own temple, don't expect others to bow down before you.
If the point is that every woman thinks every man is a credible prospective assailant, then I think that's just crazy. You can't live your life like that.
It'd be like me assuming every woman was out to clean me out, or every business trying to swindle me. You should be savvy, of course, but you have to give people the benefit of the doubt.