It wasn’t all that long ago that he was a COVID zealot.
Sadiq Khan doesn't deserve your abuse. At the time when Khan struck you as a COVID zealot, it wasn't yet known that, as Patrick Vallance said, "There is so far no evidence that mass gatherings lead to a rise in COVID-19 cases. ... following recent mass gatherings ... during protests." And what Vallance said (reiterated by Chris Whitty) cohered with there being no spike in infections in New York City following demonstrations there. If Khan doesn't understand why the application to hold a vigil wasn't treated on its merits, I'm with him. You perhaps wouldn't want to treat it on its merits -- especially if that enables you to derogate him.
I’m old enough to remember when Khan was encouraging all of us to use the Tube during early Covid, because it was so ‘safe’
What were you called then? I forget.
I don’t think anyone has ever accused him of being I Forget.
Thank you for the thread, @Cyclefree and in many ways a deeply thought provoking and uncomfortable piece.
I don't have any answers.
Sexualisation is part of human nature - the primal urge to copulate and reproduce. Pornography has existed for thousands of years - for all our claims of human evolution and maturity and civilisation, I suspect we've not come as far as we think.
I don't have any answers.
EVERY murder is a terrible tragedy for those closest to the victim which, as @Cyclefree correctly opines, all too often includes the perpetrator. However, it's those killings which appear so incredibly random, so incredibly motiveless that bring out the sharpest emotional response. To think a life can be snuffed out in such an abominable way, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I don't have any answers.
You won't have answers so long as you can rest your case with 'Sexualisation is part of human nature". When John Stuart Mill wrote 'What is normal seems natural", he was speaking of the subjection of women, and he hoped that because it was normal (i.e. normally found), it might not be attributed to what you call "human nature".
It's obvious from the context what Stodge meant by 'sexualisation'. Of course he is right. Good luck to anyone seriously wanting to deny that it is part of human nature.
I wonder why, if it's men's nature to do such things, increasingly many men know that they should desist from shouting 'vile c***' at women, stalking them, abusing them. Cyclefree wrote about "the level of sexual abuse, harassment and assault which women face". Do you yourself attribute the level to human nature? Do you think that men's abusiveness towards women in the workplace and in the streets is attributable to the "primal urge to copulate and reproduce"?
Just thinking about one of Cyclefree's suggestions. I don't know any parent or school that hasn't tried to impart values of respect towards women and girls to young males. Between us on PB, do we know any? Does Cyclefree?
I went to an all boys school and I don't believe the topic of respect to women ever came up. If it did, I certainly don't recall it coming up.
I was brought up to treat everyone with respect. But I don't recall the school ever speaking specifically about women that way, it was simply expected to treat everyone with respect.
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
Testing still through the roof and despite this, cases still falling:
What's going on with the testing? Schoolkids i guess?
Yes, and essential businesses now have access to tests as well.
Edit - incidentally, it is a total fucking ballache to enter the results. It takes about eight minutes. So expect the number of tests to apparently drop off significantly next week as people decide not to bother to report negative results.
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
"Im Vereinigten Königreich wurden vom AstraZeneca und BioNTech Impfstoff jeweils rund 10 mio Dosen verimpft" offers a clue.
That really sums up Khan....do nothing, hides from tough decisions, but goes full PR when opportunity e.g. Trump.
You could say that about a lot of politicians i suppose, but he has a long record of being a achieve nothing politician.
You could say that about his two immediate predecessors as Mayor of London in all honesty.
The post is an overpaid sinecure without a smidgen of actual responsibility and authority - a bit like being First Minister of Scotland or Leader of Surrey County Council I suppose.
Yes. But both prior mayors - Ken and Boris (in very different ways) - had a positivity to them. Slightly rebellious, certainly upbeat, apparently dynamic (even if it was a facade). They were good figureheads for a great, bustling, kinetic city like London.
Khan is so utterly dreary. He’s a downer. A whiny voice always lamenting. So he’s no good at the one thing a mayor can and should do: lead and inspire
Khan doesn't call any members of the London Assembly 'dear' in meetings, as his predecessor did. Is that what makes him dreary?
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
"Im Vereinigten Königreich wurden vom AstraZeneca und BioNTech Impfstoff jeweils rund 10 mio Dosen verimpft" offers a clue.
I came bottom in German at my comprehensive school.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
Just thinking about one of Cyclefree's suggestions. I don't know any parent or school that hasn't tried to impart values of respect towards women and girls to young males. Between us on PB, do we know any? Does Cyclefree?
Yes, I've come across a lot of fathers who display sexist or even misogynistic behaviour or attitudes. Fathers are role models for a lot of sons, so of course their sons imitate them. Such behaviour/attitudes may not even be conscious, but are deeply ingrained.
Schools do better, but in my considerable experience it is still the case that casual sexism or the belittling/objectification of women/girls too often goes unchallenged.
Just thinking about one of Cyclefree's suggestions. I don't know any parent or school that hasn't tried to impart values of respect towards women and girls to young males. Between us on PB, do we know any? Does Cyclefree?
Of Cyclefree’s many sharp, surprising and quietly devastating insights, the one that really leaps out - for me - is this:
“Have effective well-trained police”
I actually had to read that three or four times to take it all in. And then I sat with a mug of tea and, no exaggeration, my world view was kinda upended. Hitherto I’ve always supported ineffective police. That is surely the best option for society. Employ really incapable police, maybe some who won’t leave home? My ideal policeman was - before this remarkable analysis - an aged, nervous badger, with a heart condition, concealed under a tree.
And what about training police well? Again, a revelation. I’ve always thought the best way to train police is to teach them to knit, and do it badly, so they can’t even knit, then send them out on the streets with a ball of unused wool to show to criminals. Now, I’m not so sure.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
"Im Vereinigten Königreich wurden vom AstraZeneca und BioNTech Impfstoff jeweils rund 10 mio Dosen verimpft" offers a clue.
"In the UK, Around 10 million vaccinations of AstraZeneca and BioNTech each. Connection with a pulmonary embolism (mostly triggered by blood clots = thrombosis): 13 cases for AZ, 15 for BioNTech."
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
Just thinking about one of Cyclefree's suggestions. I don't know any parent or school that hasn't tried to impart values of respect towards women and girls to young males. Between us on PB, do we know any? Does Cyclefree?
Of Cyclefree’s many sharp, surprising and quietly devastating insights, the one that really leaps out - for me - is this:
“Have effective well-trained police”
I actually had to read that three or four times to take it all in. And then I sat with a mug of tea and, no exaggeration, my world view was kinda upended. Hitherto I’ve always supported ineffective police. That is surely the best option for society. Employ really incapable police, maybe some who won’t leave home? My ideal policeman was - before this remarkable analysis - an aged, nervous badger, with a heart condition, concealed under a tree.
And what about training police well? Again, a revelation. I’ve always thought the best way to train police is to teach them to knit, and do it badly, so they can’t even knit, then send them out on the streets with a ball of unused wool to show to criminals. Now, I’m not so sure.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
You think the only punishment worth giving to offenders is being locked in a cage for an extended period of time? Really?
Thank you for the thread, @Cyclefree and in many ways a deeply thought provoking and uncomfortable piece.
I don't have any answers.
Sexualisation is part of human nature - the primal urge to copulate and reproduce. Pornography has existed for thousands of years - for all our claims of human evolution and maturity and civilisation, I suspect we've not come as far as we think.
I don't have any answers.
EVERY murder is a terrible tragedy for those closest to the victim which, as @Cyclefree correctly opines, all too often includes the perpetrator. However, it's those killings which appear so incredibly random, so incredibly motiveless that bring out the sharpest emotional response. To think a life can be snuffed out in such an abominable way, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I don't have any answers.
You won't have answers so long as you can rest your case with 'Sexualisation is part of human nature". When John Stuart Mill wrote 'What is normal seems natural", he was speaking of the subjection of women, and he hoped that because it was normal (i.e. normally found), it might not be attributed to what you call "human nature".
It's obvious from the context what Stodge meant by 'sexualisation'. Of course he is right. Good luck to anyone seriously wanting to deny that it is part of human nature.
I wonder why, if it's men's nature to do such things, increasingly many men know that they should desist from shouting 'vile c***' at women, stalking them, abusing them. Cyclefree wrote about "the level of sexual abuse, harassment and assault which women face". Do you yourself attribute the level to human nature? Do you think that men's abusiveness towards women in the workplace and in the streets is attributable to the "primal urge to copulate and reproduce"?
I fully agree with your attack on the straw man you are discussing with, which is neither me, nor so far as I can see, Stodge. I don't know how anyone could disagree with you.
Boris doesn’t always show the best judgement but seems that by waiting for the facts to come in and see where public opinion lands he’s played a blinder so far.
Sadiq throwing the police under the bus and his switch from lockdown obsessive to defender of freedoms is quite something. I certainly think he’s out of tune with the National mood but perhaps in terms of his London vote base it’s not a bad call, particularly given the radical response form the Lib Dem’s who appear to be reinventing themselves as anti status quo and anti establishment to try and regain relevance.
For me, the key is respect. Young men must to taught to respect women and women must be taught to respect themselves. Women with self respect don't tolerate abuse or disrespect. They know that they are entitled to better. Those lacking that self respect become victims.
But men who respect women can also help to build that self respect. And they do. It's a virtuous circle that needs to be encouraged.
Taught to respect but not belittle eg damsels in distress.
Of course, people are already taught, formally, to treat everyone with respect, so it is a harder, cultural thing.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
More money and resources on criminal justice, for prosecutors, the courts and yes even for defence, seem slike a no brainer to me. It doesn't cost all that much in the grand scheme of things, it won't address all the problems but will clear up a major part of the problem, and a faster, smoother run system will give confidence to the public and those involved in it. Yes, anything to do with legal aid will stir up the papers, but it works out in th eend.
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
"Im Vereinigten Königreich wurden vom AstraZeneca und BioNTech Impfstoff jeweils rund 10 mio Dosen verimpft" offers a clue.
"In the UK, Around 10 million vaccinations of AstraZeneca and BioNTech each. Connection with a pulmonary embolism (mostly triggered by blood clots = thrombosis): 13 cases for AZ, 15 for BioNTech."
Is what I make it - is that right?
I think so but I am no expert, I can kind of read academic papers in my own subject in German but only because I knoww hat they are going to say anyway.
That really sums up Khan....do nothing, hides from tough decisions, but goes full PR when opportunity e.g. Trump.
You could say that about a lot of politicians i suppose, but he has a long record of being a achieve nothing politician.
You could say that about his two immediate predecessors as Mayor of London in all honesty.
The post is an overpaid sinecure without a smidgen of actual responsibility and authority - a bit like being First Minister of Scotland or Leader of Surrey County Council I suppose.
Yes. But both prior mayors - Ken and Boris (in very different ways) - had a positivity to them. Slightly rebellious, certainly upbeat, apparently dynamic (even if it was a facade). They were good figureheads for a great, bustling, kinetic city like London.
Khan is so utterly dreary. He’s a downer. A whiny voice always lamenting. So he’s no good at the one thing a mayor can and should do: lead and inspire
Khan doesn't call any members of the London Assembly 'dear' in meetings, as his predecessor did. Is that what makes him dreary?
If the best thing you can say about a politician is that he ‘doesn’t call people “dear”’, then yes, I suggest that politician might be a tiny bit dreary and lacklustre
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
"Im Vereinigten Königreich wurden vom AstraZeneca und BioNTech Impfstoff jeweils rund 10 mio Dosen verimpft" offers a clue.
I came bottom in German at my comprehensive school.
Richard Porson would have approved, even though it was one of the few things he was quite wrong about: 'Life is too short to learn German'.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
No doubt the non Labour political strategists will queueing up for this level of insight, and that (checks polling) 21 point lead for Khan will be sluiced away in a matter of weeks. Or the 25 point lead for the SNP for that matter.
Just thinking about one of Cyclefree's suggestions. I don't know any parent or school that hasn't tried to impart values of respect towards women and girls to young males. Between us on PB, do we know any? Does Cyclefree?
Of Cyclefree’s many sharp, surprising and quietly devastating insights, the one that really leaps out - for me - is this:
“Have effective well-trained police”
I actually had to read that three or four times to take it all in. And then I sat with a mug of tea and, no exaggeration, my world view was kinda upended. Hitherto I’ve always supported ineffective police. That is surely the best option for society. Employ really incapable police, maybe some who won’t leave home? My ideal policeman was - before this remarkable analysis - an aged, nervous badger, with a heart condition, concealed under a tree.
And what about training police well? Again, a revelation. I’ve always thought the best way to train police is to teach them to knit, and do it badly, so they can’t even knit, then send them out on the streets with a ball of unused wool to show to criminals. Now, I’m not so sure.
A lot to chew over.
So you do admire the current lot then?
The problem isn't generally the rank and file. The problem is the Management Team. They call themselves that - SMT - the Senior Management Team. Not leadership...
The classic example of the modern breed is the senior officer who, on seeing that one of his men was being stabbed to death in front of him, locked himself in his official car. To add to the sauce on that one, the same officer had a hobby of going round police stations reprimanding officers for not wearing their body armour in the office.
He was not wearing body armour when hiding in the car - in fact that was his excuse for not getting out and doing something.
I would never dream of talking to, or about, women in the really gross way that someone like Donald Trump favours. Most men don't, but too many do, and you're right that it's disgusting. I'm not sure how one could have any self-respect when talking about people in such crude terms.
Porn/erotica is inevitable, and something that a great many women as well as men enjoy. I think the problematic element of it as that much of it simulates rape, and at least implies that violence and humiliation should be a part of sex.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
Perhaps, but I don't think anyone has many stones to throw on people on their side at some point going 'How could anyone vote for Opponent X?' It's a comfort blanket. Granted providing an alternative is a different matter.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
No doubt the non Labour polling strategists will queueing up for this level of insight, and that (checks polling) 21 point lead for Khan will be sluiced away in a matter of weeks. Or the 25 point lead for the SNP for that matter.
Oh, I’ve no doubt Khan will romp home. Labour have dodged a bullet tho. He would be a terrible national leader and his inept, tedious, banal, confused and pointless mayoralty has proved this, before he tries for the top.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
You think the only punishment worth giving to offenders is being locked in a cage for an extended period of time? Really?
I think for serious repeated law breakers absolutely taking people off the streets is worth doing and if we're not bothering to do that then there's little point going through the charade.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
No doubt the non Labour political strategists will queueing up for this level of insight, and that (checks polling) 21 point lead for Khan will be sluiced away in a matter of weeks. Or the 25 point lead for the SNP for that matter.
The problem is what’s good for Khan isn’t what’s good for Labour. His approach is only going to push the red wall further out of reach. The party that is against law and order? Doesn’t sound good to a lot of voters.
Worth sharing this tweet. Seems pulmonary events in the UK have been slightly more common in Pfizer-vaccinated people but there's really no difference and about what you would expect in the general population. https://twitter.com/Martin_Moder/status/1371033872046166025?s=19
(Without knowing the relative numbers of doses given, you can't draw that conclusion.)
"Im Vereinigten Königreich wurden vom AstraZeneca und BioNTech Impfstoff jeweils rund 10 mio Dosen verimpft" offers a clue.
"In the UK, Around 10 million vaccinations of AstraZeneca and BioNTech each. Connection with a pulmonary embolism (mostly triggered by blood clots = thrombosis): 13 cases for AZ, 15 for BioNTech."
Is what I make it - is that right?
Wouldn't completely rule out the outcome of this being that, rather than do a rapid about turn on AZ, if countries start suspending Pfizer as well!
Interesting article, a bit wordy but lots of good points raised.
I think respect for women taught from a young age is key to all of this, my parents played a big role in this for my, my older sister as well. I think Asian men have a lot to learn and thankfully in my generation for Indians it's a lot better than my parent's generation where wife beating was commonplace, honour killings a fact of life in India and forced marriage tolerated. I think Indians in the UK have come a long way and I think the other British Asians could learn a lot from us because if one were to look into the detail of crimes against women Asians will be massively overrepresented and this is all because of a culture that values boys more than girls.
A friend of my dad’s spent years travelling round Asia selling stuff (probably weapons, we don’t know for sure). Anyway, he used to take his wife on many trips.
She told me that everywhere they went was fine and she’d go off exploring places on her own whilst her husband was doing business etc. With one exception. India. She said that when she left the hotel on her own she found she had a group of men following her. She managed to double back to the hotel, but it properly shook her up. Maybe she was unlucky but it fits with other stories that get reported in the media.
I once took a young, pretty, blonde, blue eyed girlfriend to the Red Fort in Delhi. Without exaggeration, she came close to causing a riot. It started with young men wanting to be photographed next to her. Then women as well. Then large groups. Then the Indian people started jostling and shouting at each other as to who could get closest - fighting was imminent - finally the police intervened, forcefully - batons raised - and escorted us outside and to safety.
Quite scary.
It’s not just India tho. Woe betide the young blonde western woman in, say, Cairo
I've heard similar horror stories from friends in India, including one who simply cut her travelling tour short and flew home.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
No doubt the non Labour polling strategists will queueing up for this level of insight, and that (checks polling) 21 point lead for Khan will be sluiced away in a matter of weeks. Or the 25 point lead for the SNP for that matter.
Oh, I’ve no doubt Khan will romp home. Labour have dodged a bullet tho. He would be a terrible national leader and his inept, tedious, banal, confused and pointless mayoralty has proved this, before he tries for the top.
He is going to have a very tricky time over the next 4 years if people decide to do the home working thing and move out of the city. But he will blame it on the Tories, the Tories, the Tories.
Thank you for the thread, @Cyclefree and in many ways a deeply thought provoking and uncomfortable piece.
I don't have any answers.
Sexualisation is part of human nature - the primal urge to copulate and reproduce. Pornography has existed for thousands of years - for all our claims of human evolution and maturity and civilisation, I suspect we've not come as far as we think.
I don't have any answers.
EVERY murder is a terrible tragedy for those closest to the victim which, as @Cyclefree correctly opines, all too often includes the perpetrator. However, it's those killings which appear so incredibly random, so incredibly motiveless that bring out the sharpest emotional response. To think a life can be snuffed out in such an abominable way, to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I don't have any answers.
You won't have answers so long as you can rest your case with 'Sexualisation is part of human nature". When John Stuart Mill wrote 'What is normal seems natural", he was speaking of the subjection of women, and he hoped that because it was normal (i.e. normally found), it might not be attributed to what you call "human nature".
It's obvious from the context what Stodge meant by 'sexualisation'. Of course he is right. Good luck to anyone seriously wanting to deny that it is part of human nature.
I wonder why, if it's men's nature to do such things, increasingly many men know that they should desist from shouting 'vile c***' at women, stalking them, abusing them. Cyclefree wrote about "the level of sexual abuse, harassment and assault which women face". Do you yourself attribute the level to human nature? Do you think that men's abusiveness towards women in the workplace and in the streets is attributable to the "primal urge to copulate and reproduce"?
I think that the evidence is that the in the primitive state, humans are horrible. A few minutes perusing the reports of what happens in those lovely, peaceful primitive tribes in the Amazon or the archaeological evidence will tell you that.
Hence civilisation. We need to aim for a higher standard. Liberal social democracy, equality etc are not the natural state for humans. It was a long climb to get here. We have a long way to go.
It wasn’t all that long ago that he was a COVID zealot.
That really sums up Khan....do nothing, hides from tough decisions, but goes full PR when opportunity e.g. Trump.
You could say that about a lot of politicians i suppose, but he has a long record of being a achieve nothing politician.
I think I dislike Khan even more than Corbyn. Which is saying something. At least with Corbyn you got a sense he had some principles and integrity, even if his principles were warped and his integrity valueless.
Khan comes across as a void. A meretricious, insinuating nullity.
To paraphrase Boris: "The LibDems Sadiq Khan areis not just empty. They He are is a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition."
I would be very happy for Meghan to stand for elected office in the US - up to her, good luck to her, nice to see her planning something that doesn't involve interviews about the British Royal family.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
Perhaps, but I don't think anyone has many stones to throw on people on their side at some point going 'How could anyone vote for Opponent X?' It's a comfort blanket. Granted providing an alternative is a different matter.
Providing an alternative is the only alternative, unless waiting until your opponents' vision-free crapness gradually increases to match your own is a viable strategy.
I will set aside a month next year to read this piece.
Why, thank you for proving my point, and so early on in the comments!
I shall now start writing my next piece so that I can take up another month of your valuable time.
Don’t be so touchy. I really enjoy your comments below the line. You are admirably honest, articulate, and persuasive.
However there is a justifiable criticism of your thread headers: they are too long. A huge wodge of text. It’s visually off-putting and I am pretty sure a good editor would and could shorten this one by 50% or more, while still getting over your worthy points - thus making it more likely people will read it: which is what you want.
Always remember the wise words of Blaise Pascal - ‘I am sorry this letter is so long, I did not have enough time to make it shorter’
I would be very happy for Meghan to stand for elected office in the US - up to her, good luck to her, nice to see her planning something that doesn't involve interviews about the British Royal family.
Truly excellent post by Cyclefree, and one that PBers - especially those of us in the Y-chromosome contingent - should re-read and REALLY take to heart.
Sorry the thred's been somewhat hijacked by the Megahan nonsense but well that's life I guess.
On THAT, my own view is that the Duchess of Sussex would be a BETTER bet for the White House that say, Baby Don or anyone else named Trump(sky).
Really?
This is all irrelevant to me, and I hope to the vast majority of PBers, as neither a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff. But, oh look, a visible-a-mile-off little booby trap has been cunningly incorporated into the piece to stop me saying that: "there is something narcissistic (grotesque even) about the rush by some men to focus on how they are not to blame, should not be victimised and should not have their freedoms curbed." I am not rushing to focus on anything, I don't claim to be victimised or to have had my freedoms curbed, I have yet to say anything at all on the subject and I am saying this now merely to rebut the insinuation to the contrary in the piece. We are not all guilty.
Oh dear. You will be accused of "whining".
Having spent a lifetime being never a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff, I have huge sympathy for women who suffer the horrors meted out by that smallish percentage of twattish blokes who think they can use their physical form or belief in some inherent male advantage of "the system". But marking all our cards gets women nowhere, other than embedding the victimhood. Recruits us, don't paint us as all part of the problem.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
I'm going to call BS on that. Was he cherrypicking one case that had people then undershooting (while for a bulk of remaining cases their guess would be right or overshooting)?
Unless its independently random or verified that sounds like the realms of Lib Dems barcharttery.
One of the cases I've personally seen taken to court was someone who broke into my house, he woke me up and I saw him in my kitchen. He ran off and instinct took over, I ran after him (in just my boxers, god knows what I'd have done if I'd caught him) and I got his reg plate. Called 999 and gave the reg plate and details and CSI came and took footprints etc
He was arrested the next week red handed breaking into someone else's house. Same reg plate. He pled guilty to my break-in and twenty other break-ins. He'd not long been out of jail since the last time he'd been sentenced.
His sentence? One year suspended. Made me feel like I should break into the Judge's home and see if I got a suspended sentence for that, bet I wouldn't!
Testing still through the roof and despite this, cases still falling:
But most importantly, the second highest day on record (after 30 January) for reported total vaccinations. It looks like the long-awaited supply ramp might finally be underway...
All the red-faced hating on Khan is somewhat reminiscent of the Yoons repetitive cris de coeur: he/they are terrible, how can people vote for them, followed by a big vat of fuck all when it comes to providing even a vaguely convincing alternative.
ANYONE ELSE. That’s my alternative. Literally ANYONE ELSE
Even Shaun Bailey?
Yes, even Shaun Bailey. Indeed, even Laurence Fox. At least he’d be amusing.
There’s a huge quasi-homeless guy who walks down my street at 2pm every day wildly talking to himself, then every so often shouting ‘CARS! CARS! CARS! I LIKE CARS! DO YOU LIKE CARS?! CARS!’
He’d be a better Mayor of London than Sadiq Khan. At least he’d have a coherent transport policy
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
I'm going to call BS on that. Was he cherrypicking one case that had people then undershooting (while for a bulk of remaining cases their guess would be right or overshooting)?
Unless its independently random or verified that sounds like the realms of Lib Dems barcharttery.
One of the cases I've personally seen taken to court was someone who broke into my house, he woke me up and I saw him in my kitchen. He ran off and instinct took over, I ran after him (in just my boxers, god knows what I'd have done if I'd caught him) and I got his reg plate. Called 999 and gave the reg plate and details and CSI came and took footprints etc
He was arrested the next week red handed breaking into someone else's house. Same reg plate. He pled guilty to my break-in and twenty other break-ins. He'd not long been out of jail since the last time he'd been sentenced.
His sentence? One year suspended. Made me feel like I should break into the Judge's home and see if I got a suspended sentence for that, bet I wouldn't!
They were his cases: he was a magistrate.
The judge will have been following the government's guidelines. To the letter. He/she has very little discretion.
And those 19 other burglaries. He'll have pled guilty to them because the police will have wanted to pad their cases closed numbers.
Really, the sentence will have been based on a single burglary, where he pled guilty at the earliest possible point, and you will find that is the government's recommended sentence for someone who has no criminal record and a single burglary is probably one year, suspended.
I would never dream of talking to, or about, women in the really gross way that someone like Donald Trump favours. Most men don't, but too many do, and you're right that it's disgusting. I'm not sure how one could have any self-respect when talking about people in such crude terms.
Porn/erotica is inevitable, and something that a great many women as well as men enjoy. I think the problematic element of it as that much of it simulates rape, and at least implies that violence and humiliation should be a part of sex.
One issue there is that some people *do* want simulated violence / humiliation as part of sex.
We have been there before with various acts of Parliament.
One underlying question there is are the police / CPS competent enough to deal with any of this.
Re header: I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous. Women spend so much time and money trying to entice men. Most men will do everything they can to protect women without question, and they'd never even contemplate hurting them.
Quite how many lifetimes of great diligence add up to this disregard escapes me.
I will set aside a month next year to read this piece.
Why, thank you for proving my point, and so early on in the comments!
I shall now start writing my next piece so that I can take up another month of your valuable time.
Don’t be so touchy. I really enjoy your comments below the line. You are admirably honest, articulate, and persuasive.
However there is a justifiable criticism of your thread headers: they are too long. A huge wodge of text. It’s visually off-putting and I am pretty sure a good editor would and could shorten this one by 50% or more, while still getting over your worthy points - thus making it more likely people will read it: which is what you want.
Always remember the wise words of Blaise Pascal - ‘I am sorry this letter is so long, I did not have enough time to make it shorter’
Agreed.
Sensible advice.
But I was mostly teasing you.
Good. I am well aware PB thread-writers are not paid so I am generally loathe to criticise. It’s just a shame you tend to prolixity when you are very eloquent and often make clever, interesting points, even when I disagree.
And I am urgently cheering on your daughter’s restaurant! As I am cheering on all restaurants, bars, pubs, clubs. They’ve had a truly terrible time and they deserve some luck.
I would never dream of talking to, or about, women in the really gross way that someone like Donald Trump favours. Most men don't, but too many do, and you're right that it's disgusting. I'm not sure how one could have any self-respect when talking about people in such crude terms.
Porn/erotica is inevitable, and something that a great many women as well as men enjoy. I think the problematic element of it as that much of it simulates rape, and at least implies that violence and humiliation should be a part of sex.
Not just porn but on many popular top-rated critically acclaimed leading shows as well, like Spartacus or Game of Thrones.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
I'm going to call BS on that. Was he cherrypicking one case that had people then undershooting (while for a bulk of remaining cases their guess would be right or overshooting)?
Unless its independently random or verified that sounds like the realms of Lib Dems barcharttery.
One of the cases I've personally seen taken to court was someone who broke into my house, he woke me up and I saw him in my kitchen. He ran off and instinct took over, I ran after him (in just my boxers, god knows what I'd have done if I'd caught him) and I got his reg plate. Called 999 and gave the reg plate and details and CSI came and took footprints etc
He was arrested the next week red handed breaking into someone else's house. Same reg plate. He pled guilty to my break-in and twenty other break-ins. He'd not long been out of jail since the last time he'd been sentenced.
His sentence? One year suspended. Made me feel like I should break into the Judge's home and see if I got a suspended sentence for that, bet I wouldn't!
They were his cases: he was a magistrate.
The judge will have been following the government's guidelines. To the letter. He/she has very little discretion.
And those 19 other burglaries. He'll have pled guilty to them because the police will have wanted to pad their cases closed numbers.
Really, the sentence will have been based on a single burglary, where he pled guilty at the earliest possible point, and you will find that is the government's recommended sentence for someone who has no criminal record and a single burglary is probably one year, suspended.
Just because they're his cases doesn't mean they're any more representative a sample as a Lib Dem barchart is.
The Police Officer dealing with my case said he'll have pled guilty to all cases in order to get a 'clean slate' as it then closes all his cases simultaneously so he can't be prosecuted again after he's been sentenced (until next time he breaks the law).
One thing the Americans do right is serving sentences consecutively not concurrently.
He had a criminal record, he'd not long been out of jail. Had a revolving door record of going in and out of jail.
One year suspended for someone who has a long revolving door track record of going in and out of jail for burglaries, then committing 20 more, do you really think that's appropriate?
Good to see this timely piece from Cycle. There was a good one too from Janice Turner in the Times. These are not leftist culture warriors. They are neither politicizing the issue nor attacking men. They are talking about one of the biggest issues women face in their fight for true emancipation - misogyny.
This manifests as objectification and belittlement. At the individual level it does not necessarily lead to a crime. Indeed it usually doesn’t. But the more misogyny there is in society the more misogynistic crimes – i.e. crimes of violence and harassment against women - there will be. This is not my truth or women’s truth. It’s the truth.
So this week we’ve had a particularly extreme example and it’s shone a light on the wider topic. That sometimes happens with these things – e.g. George Floyd, Harvey Weinstein – and as per usual many of those not disadvantaged by the status quo dislike it. Hence the focus on deflective strawmen such as #notallmen and 6pm male curfews.
I hope all of that nonsense is ignored and we do have a serious push on reducing the level of misogyny in society. It’s not a matter of changing the law but of changing attitudes and behaviour.
For example, imagine a man who is in the habit of objectifying and belittling women and as a consequence of a social movement along the lines of ‘metoo’ feels less comfortable in doing so. That’s a win. Even if he carries on, it’s a win. If he stops, all the better. And if he not only stops but starts objecting when he comes across others doing it, that’s a big win. Ditto if he never was a culprit – as lots of men aren’t – but in the past had chosen to ignore it.
This is how you change things here. Social pressure leading to micro changes in millions of men. Add it all up and in quite a short time you can see a transformation.
Truly excellent post by Cyclefree, and one that PBers - especially those of us in the Y-chromosome contingent - should re-read and REALLY take to heart.
Sorry the thred's been somewhat hijacked by the Megahan nonsense but well that's life I guess.
On THAT, my own view is that the Duchess of Sussex would be a BETTER bet for the White House that say, Baby Don or anyone else named Trump(sky).
Really?
This is all irrelevant to me, and I hope to the vast majority of PBers, as neither a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff. But, oh look, a visible-a-mile-off little booby trap has been cunningly incorporated into the piece to stop me saying that: "there is something narcissistic (grotesque even) about the rush by some men to focus on how they are not to blame, should not be victimised and should not have their freedoms curbed." I am not rushing to focus on anything, I don't claim to be victimised or to have had my freedoms curbed, I have yet to say anything at all on the subject and I am saying this now merely to rebut the insinuation to the contrary in the piece. We are not all guilty.
I have not said all men are guilty of misbehaviour. But some men did rush to complain about being victimised.
If men want things to change they have to play their part. They are fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, colleagues. They work and live with women. They have helped shape the world as it is. They can help shape a better world. Or they can just sit there saying they they're not guilty and pretend there is nothing they could do.
I have seen this in banking. Lots of people behaved impeccably and were, rightly, furious that their good name and hard work and reputation and professionalism were damaged - in they eyes of others - by the crooks. Of course it was unfair.
But you know what: when it came to doing the hard work to change the culture it was those people who had to do it, who had to think about what they were doing right and how to share it and spread it amongst others. They had to think about what was wrong and why it was wrong and how they could stop it. They had to realise that silence isn't enough, that you have to intervene and call out bad behaviour.
And that's what I'm suggesting that decent men, of which I expect you are one, need to do. If we want to improve our society for the better.
Now why is this hard to understand or agree with? Why do some see this as criticism? Why are some being so defensive when a woman points this out?
Interesting article, a bit wordy but lots of good points raised.
I think respect for women taught from a young age is key to all of this, my parents played a big role in this for my, my older sister as well. I think Asian men have a lot to learn and thankfully in my generation for Indians it's a lot better than my parent's generation where wife beating was commonplace, honour killings a fact of life in India and forced marriage tolerated. I think Indians in the UK have come a long way and I think the other British Asians could learn a lot from us because if one were to look into the detail of crimes against women Asians will be massively overrepresented and this is all because of a culture that values boys more than girls.
A friend of my dad’s spent years travelling round Asia selling stuff (probably weapons, we don’t know for sure). Anyway, he used to take his wife on many trips.
She told me that everywhere they went was fine and she’d go off exploring places on her own whilst her husband was doing business etc. With one exception. India. She said that when she left the hotel on her own she found she had a group of men following her. She managed to double back to the hotel, but it properly shook her up. Maybe she was unlucky but it fits with other stories that get reported in the media.
I once took a young, pretty, blonde, blue eyed girlfriend to the Red Fort in Delhi. Without exaggeration, she came close to causing a riot. It started with young men wanting to be photographed next to her. Then women as well. Then large groups. Then the Indian people started jostling and shouting at each other as to who could get closest - fighting was imminent - finally the police intervened, forcefully - batons raised - and escorted us outside and to safety.
Quite scary.
It’s not just India tho. Woe betide the young blonde western woman in, say, Cairo
I've heard similar horror stories from friends in India, including one who simply cut her travelling tour short and flew home.
It’s the blonde hair/blue eyes/fair skin combination that causes the most intense reactions. I guess because it is rare to non existent in most countries, so it is highly prized or desired. Many Asian societies fetishise fair skin, even as pale western women try to get a tan. A grand human irony.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
I'm going to call BS on that. Was he cherrypicking one case that had people then undershooting (while for a bulk of remaining cases their guess would be right or overshooting)?
Unless its independently random or verified that sounds like the realms of Lib Dems barcharttery.
One of the cases I've personally seen taken to court was someone who broke into my house, he woke me up and I saw him in my kitchen. He ran off and instinct took over, I ran after him (in just my boxers, god knows what I'd have done if I'd caught him) and I got his reg plate. Called 999 and gave the reg plate and details and CSI came and took footprints etc
He was arrested the next week red handed breaking into someone else's house. Same reg plate. He pled guilty to my break-in and twenty other break-ins. He'd not long been out of jail since the last time he'd been sentenced.
His sentence? One year suspended. Made me feel like I should break into the Judge's home and see if I got a suspended sentence for that, bet I wouldn't!
They were his cases: he was a magistrate.
The judge will have been following the government's guidelines. To the letter. He/she has very little discretion.
And those 19 other burglaries. He'll have pled guilty to them because the police will have wanted to pad their cases closed numbers.
Really, the sentence will have been based on a single burglary, where he pled guilty at the earliest possible point, and you will find that is the government's recommended sentence for someone who has no criminal record and a single burglary is probably one year, suspended.
Just because they're his cases doesn't mean they're any more representative a sample as a Lib Dem barchart is.
The Police Officer dealing with my case said he'll have pled guilty to all cases in order to get a 'clean slate' as it then closes all his cases simultaneously so he can't be prosecuted again after he's been sentenced (until next time he breaks the law).
One thing the Americans do right is serving sentences consecutively not concurrently.
He had a criminal record, he'd not long been out of jail. Had a revolving door record of going in and out of jail.
One year suspended for someone who has a long revolving door track record of going in and out of jail for burglaries, then committing 20 more, do you really think that's appropriate?
I find it hard to believe that someone just out of prison, committing the offence stated (in the way stated) could have avoided a custodial sentence.
In particular, the offence would have been categorised as greater than normal harm, as you were present when it took place. And - if they were not long released from prison - it would also have fallen under the greater seriousness category.
Truly excellent post by Cyclefree, and one that PBers - especially those of us in the Y-chromosome contingent - should re-read and REALLY take to heart.
Sorry the thred's been somewhat hijacked by the Megahan nonsense but well that's life I guess.
On THAT, my own view is that the Duchess of Sussex would be a BETTER bet for the White House that say, Baby Don or anyone else named Trump(sky).
Really?
This is all irrelevant to me, and I hope to the vast majority of PBers, as neither a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff. But, oh look, a visible-a-mile-off little booby trap has been cunningly incorporated into the piece to stop me saying that: "there is something narcissistic (grotesque even) about the rush by some men to focus on how they are not to blame, should not be victimised and should not have their freedoms curbed." I am not rushing to focus on anything, I don't claim to be victimised or to have had my freedoms curbed, I have yet to say anything at all on the subject and I am saying this now merely to rebut the insinuation to the contrary in the piece. We are not all guilty.
Oh dear. You will be accused of "whining".
Having spent a lifetime being never a perpetrator, enabler nor condoner of any of this stuff, I have huge sympathy for women who suffer the horrors meted out by that smallish percentage of twattish blokes who think they can use their physical form or belief in some inherent male advantage of "the system". But marking all our cards gets women nowhere, other than embedding the victimhood. Recruits us, don't paint us as all part of the problem.
I don't paint all men as part of the problem. And you clearly have not read the last paragraph.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Hmm. I think yesterday @MarqueeMark posted some reservations about painting all men as part of the problem.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Deaths reported figure even better when you consider that we were told yesterday that Sunday would be including some missing Saturday numbers.
Govt is going to be very hard pressed to hold the line if schools don't lead to a spike in numbers. I suppose the point is that they are very keen to lift lockdowns universally and therefore will move with the slowest ship in the convoy. Which i guess is ultimately fair enough if we don't want to repeat mistakes of last summer.
A primary target needs to be criminal justice reform, which means serious jailtime for breaking the law.
I am limited in my ability to relate to the way women are subjected to harrasment, but mentioned on the previous thread that I have been repeatedly a victim of violent crimes. Despite on two occasions the perpetuator getting arrested red handed, on one occasion they only got a six month jail sentence, on the other a suspended sentence. The prosecution, conviction and sentencing rates of sexual offenders are no better.
Why should law abiding women change their behaviour? All law abiding people have no choice but to change their behaviour when law breaking people are not taken off the streets for serious lengths of time even when evidence has been gathered, they've been arrested, caught, prosecuted and sentenced.
The real problem with the criminal justice system right now is not the length of sentences, but that trial dates being set now are for 2023. That's right, if you committed a crime in 2019, were arrested in 2020, and charges were brought now, then you could look forward to your day in court in two and a half years time.
When there is a close to five year gap between offences being committed and trial dates, the chance of conviction is meaningfully diminished.
And criminals concentrate far more on the chance of going to prison, than whether it's a nine or an eleven year sentence.
Nine years would be a good start.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
There used to a blogger called The Law West of Ealing Broadway, and every week he'd do a case and he'd ask people to guess the sentence. People always guessed ludicrously low.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
I'm going to call BS on that. Was he cherrypicking one case that had people then undershooting (while for a bulk of remaining cases their guess would be right or overshooting)?
Unless its independently random or verified that sounds like the realms of Lib Dems barcharttery.
One of the cases I've personally seen taken to court was someone who broke into my house, he woke me up and I saw him in my kitchen. He ran off and instinct took over, I ran after him (in just my boxers, god knows what I'd have done if I'd caught him) and I got his reg plate. Called 999 and gave the reg plate and details and CSI came and took footprints etc
He was arrested the next week red handed breaking into someone else's house. Same reg plate. He pled guilty to my break-in and twenty other break-ins. He'd not long been out of jail since the last time he'd been sentenced.
His sentence? One year suspended. Made me feel like I should break into the Judge's home and see if I got a suspended sentence for that, bet I wouldn't!
They were his cases: he was a magistrate.
The judge will have been following the government's guidelines. To the letter. He/she has very little discretion.
And those 19 other burglaries. He'll have pled guilty to them because the police will have wanted to pad their cases closed numbers.
Really, the sentence will have been based on a single burglary, where he pled guilty at the earliest possible point, and you will find that is the government's recommended sentence for someone who has no criminal record and a single burglary is probably one year, suspended.
Just because they're his cases doesn't mean they're any more representative a sample as a Lib Dem barchart is.
The Police Officer dealing with my case said he'll have pled guilty to all cases in order to get a 'clean slate' as it then closes all his cases simultaneously so he can't be prosecuted again after he's been sentenced (until next time he breaks the law).
One thing the Americans do right is serving sentences consecutively not concurrently.
He had a criminal record, he'd not long been out of jail. Had a revolving door record of going in and out of jail.
One year suspended for someone who has a long revolving door track record of going in and out of jail for burglaries, then committing 20 more, do you really think that's appropriate?
I find it hard to believe that someone just out of prison, committing the offence stated (in the way stated) could have avoided a custodial sentence.
In particular, the offence would have been categorised as greater than normal harm, as you were present when it took place. And - if they were not long released from prison - it would also have fallen under the greater seriousness category.
I couldn't believe it either. But its what happened.
Hard to have much faith in the criminal justice system after that.
The Police Officer was quite apologetic when he called me to let me know the sentence.
The police are the good guys. They may not always get 'being the good guys' right but that's their role. I think it's a very ugly thing to say otherwise.
Interesting article, a bit wordy but lots of good points raised.
I think respect for women taught from a young age is key to all of this, my parents played a big role in this for my, my older sister as well. I think Asian men have a lot to learn and thankfully in my generation for Indians it's a lot better than my parent's generation where wife beating was commonplace, honour killings a fact of life in India and forced marriage tolerated. I think Indians in the UK have come a long way and I think the other British Asians could learn a lot from us because if one were to look into the detail of crimes against women Asians will be massively overrepresented and this is all because of a culture that values boys more than girls.
A friend of my dad’s spent years travelling round Asia selling stuff (probably weapons, we don’t know for sure). Anyway, he used to take his wife on many trips.
She told me that everywhere they went was fine and she’d go off exploring places on her own whilst her husband was doing business etc. With one exception. India. She said that when she left the hotel on her own she found she had a group of men following her. She managed to double back to the hotel, but it properly shook her up. Maybe she was unlucky but it fits with other stories that get reported in the media.
I once took a young, pretty, blonde, blue eyed girlfriend to the Red Fort in Delhi. Without exaggeration, she came close to causing a riot. It started with young men wanting to be photographed next to her. Then women as well. Then large groups. Then the Indian people started jostling and shouting at each other as to who could get closest - fighting was imminent - finally the police intervened, forcefully - batons raised - and escorted us outside and to safety.
Quite scary.
It’s not just India tho. Woe betide the young blonde western woman in, say, Cairo
I've heard similar horror stories from friends in India, including one who simply cut her travelling tour short and flew home.
It’s the blonde hair/blue eyes/fair skin combination that causes the most intense reactions. I guess because it is rare to non existent in most countries, so it is highly prized or desired. Many Asian societies fetishise fair skin, even as pale western women try to get a tan. A grand human irony.
Interestingly, I saw this in Africa when I was travelling there too (with a few young blond British women in a university summer expedition) but it took a different form.
Young children would be obsessed with touching and feeling their hair, whilst smiling and laughing.
Young men would literally just stop what they were doing wherever they were, and stare - for ages, but do nothing else.
So, it felt intensely curious and perhaps a tad irritating, but not hostile.
Is that copper kicking the woman on the ground? Ugh. Grim
And much worse, from that twitter thread
Speaking of the events that day One Suffragette noted: "Several times constables and plain-clothes men who were in the crowds passed their arms round me from the back and clutched hold of my breasts in as public a manner as possible, and men in the crowd followed their example my skirt was lifted up as high as possible, and the constable attempted to lift me off the ground by raising his knee. This he could not do, so he threw me into the crowd and incited the men to treat me as they wished".
May Billinghurst, a disabled Suffragette who used a wheelchair said:
"At first, the police threw me out of the wheelchair on to the ground in a very brutal manner. Secondly, when on the machine again, they tried to push me along with my arms twisted behind me in a very painful position, with one of my fingers bent right back, which caused me great agony. Thirdly, they took me down a side road and left me in the middle of a hooligan crowd, first taking all the valves out of the wheels and pocketing them, so that I could not move the wheelchair.”
At least two women were beaten to death by the police on Black Friday and there were multiple accounts of serious sexual assault by police officers that day. Winston Churchill as Home Secretary encouraged the violent response by police and then blocked a proposed public inquiry.
Feminist author Diana Russell narrows the definition of femicide to "the killing of females by males because they are female". Russell places emphasis on the idea that males commit femicide with sexist motives.[15] She also chooses to replace the word woman with female to show that femicide can occur to both girls and infants as well.[15] Russell believes her definition of femicide applies to all forms of sexist killing, whether they be motivated by misogyny (the hatred of females), by a sense of superiority over females, by sexual pleasure, or by assumption of ownership over women.[15] Russell's broader definition of femicide is stated as this,
"Femicide is on the extreme end of a continuum of antifemale terror that includes a wide variety of verbal and physical abuse, such as rape, torture, sexual slavery (particularly in prostitution), incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse, physical and emotional battery, sexual harassment (on the phone, in the streets, at the office, and in the classroom), genital mutilation (clitoridectomies, excision, infibulations), unnecessary gynecological operations (gratuitous hysterectomies), forced heterosexuality, forced sterilization, forced motherhood (by criminalizing contraception and abortion), psychosurgery, denial of food to women in some cultures, cosmetic surgery, and other mutilations in the name of beautification. Whenever these forms of terrorism result in death, they become femicides."[16]
She includes covert killings of women as well, such as the mass murder of female babies due to male preference in cultures such as India and China, as well as deaths related to the failure of social institutions, such as the criminalization of abortion or the prevalence of female genital mutilation.[15]
Comments
I was brought up to treat everyone with respect. But I don't recall the school ever speaking specifically about women that way, it was simply expected to treat everyone with respect.
Edit - incidentally, it is a total fucking ballache to enter the results. It takes about eight minutes. So expect the number of tests to apparently drop off significantly next week as people decide not to bother to report negative results.
Schools do better, but in my considerable experience it is still the case that casual sexism or the belittling/objectification of women/girls too often goes unchallenged.
“Have effective well-trained police”
I actually had to read that three or four times to take it all in. And then I sat with a mug of tea and, no exaggeration, my world view was kinda upended. Hitherto I’ve always supported ineffective police. That is surely the best option for society. Employ really incapable police, maybe some who won’t leave home? My ideal policeman was - before this remarkable analysis - an aged, nervous badger, with a heart condition, concealed under a tree.
And what about training police well? Again, a revelation. I’ve always thought the best way to train police is to teach them to knit, and do it badly, so they can’t even knit, then send them out on the streets with a ball of unused wool to show to criminals. Now, I’m not so sure.
A lot to chew over.
What's the frigging point of investigating those who break the law then taking law breakers to trial whether this year or in three years time if even if you do and get a conviction that at the end of the trial all you give them is a suspended sentence or a six month sentence?
Especially when even a six month sentence they'll be out after two?
May as well almost not bother taking people to court.
Is what I make it - is that right?
They just need eight more in the next two overs to wriggle out of this.
Edit - oh bloody hell, I hadn’t realised it was Pant. Make that 1.3 overs.
Sadiq throwing the police under the bus and his switch from lockdown obsessive to defender of freedoms is quite something. I certainly think he’s out of tune with the National mood but perhaps in terms of his London vote base it’s not a bad call, particularly given the radical response form the Lib Dem’s who appear to be reinventing themselves as anti status quo and anti establishment to try and regain relevance.
Of course, people are already taught, formally, to treat everyone with respect, so it is a harder, cultural thing. More money and resources on criminal justice, for prosecutors, the courts and yes even for defence, seem slike a no brainer to me. It doesn't cost all that much in the grand scheme of things, it won't address all the problems but will clear up a major part of the problem, and a faster, smoother run system will give confidence to the public and those involved in it. Yes, anything to do with legal aid will stir up the papers, but it works out in th eend.
Or the 25 point lead for the SNP for that matter.
The classic example of the modern breed is the senior officer who, on seeing that one of his men was being stabbed to death in front of him, locked himself in his official car. To add to the sauce on that one, the same officer had a hobby of going round police stations reprimanding officers for not wearing their body armour in the office.
He was not wearing body armour when hiding in the car - in fact that was his excuse for not getting out and doing something.
I would never dream of talking to, or about, women in the really gross way that someone like Donald Trump favours. Most men don't, but too many do, and you're right that it's disgusting. I'm not sure how one could have any self-respect when talking about people in such crude terms.
Porn/erotica is inevitable, and something that a great many women as well as men enjoy. I think the problematic element of it as that much of it simulates rape, and at least implies that violence and humiliation should be a part of sex.
And the reason was that the sentences people see are the outliers.
Most sentences don't make headlines because they're perfectly reasonable.
We therefore have a skewed impression of how long people are likely to get locked up for.
It's also worth noting that judges and magistrates don't have very much latitude in sentencing. Tariffs for crimes are set by the government, and judges/magistrates have to follow them. And discounts for "guilty" pleas are automatic. If you plead guilty, your maximum sentence is reduced by something like 40%.
Hence civilisation. We need to aim for a higher standard. Liberal social democracy, equality etc are not the natural state for humans. It was a long climb to get here. We have a long way to go.
"The LibDems Sadiq Khan areis not just empty. They He are is a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition."
There was a thread deleted of Reddit, for example.
Sensible advice.
But I was mostly teasing you.
Bet the ruthless career politicians would just love some vapid celebrities trying to muscle in on their territory.
"To change a culture for the better, all must play their part. Men have a vital role to play to change the world in which women live – as allies, as champions, as teachers, as exemplars, as defenders – so that, whether they are 18 or 80, women can live their lives to the fullest and without fear of men behaving badly."
Which bit of this do you have a problem with?
Unless its independently random or verified that sounds like the realms of Lib Dems barcharttery.
One of the cases I've personally seen taken to court was someone who broke into my house, he woke me up and I saw him in my kitchen. He ran off and instinct took over, I ran after him (in just my boxers, god knows what I'd have done if I'd caught him) and I got his reg plate. Called 999 and gave the reg plate and details and CSI came and took footprints etc
He was arrested the next week red handed breaking into someone else's house. Same reg plate. He pled guilty to my break-in and twenty other break-ins. He'd not long been out of jail since the last time he'd been sentenced.
His sentence? One year suspended. Made me feel like I should break into the Judge's home and see if I got a suspended sentence for that, bet I wouldn't!
There’s a huge quasi-homeless guy who walks down my street at 2pm every day wildly talking to himself, then every so often shouting ‘CARS! CARS! CARS! I LIKE CARS! DO YOU LIKE CARS?! CARS!’
He’d be a better Mayor of London than Sadiq Khan. At least he’d have a coherent transport policy
from case data
from hospitalisations
The judge will have been following the government's guidelines. To the letter. He/she has very little discretion.
And those 19 other burglaries. He'll have pled guilty to them because the police will have wanted to pad their cases closed numbers.
Really, the sentence will have been based on a single burglary, where he pled guilty at the earliest possible point, and you will find that is the government's recommended sentence for someone who has no criminal record and a single burglary is probably one year, suspended.
Talk about a tell.
We have been there before with various acts of Parliament.
One underlying question there is are the police / CPS competent enough to deal with any of this.
My answer is a resounding NO.
I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous. Women spend so much time and money trying to entice men. Most men will do everything they can to protect women without question, and they'd never even contemplate hurting them.
Quite how many lifetimes of great diligence add up to this disregard escapes me.
...and its official. 65+ now less likely to become a COVID case than 0-64
And I am urgently cheering on your daughter’s restaurant! As I am cheering on all restaurants, bars, pubs, clubs. They’ve had a truly terrible time and they deserve some luck.
The Police Officer dealing with my case said he'll have pled guilty to all cases in order to get a 'clean slate' as it then closes all his cases simultaneously so he can't be prosecuted again after he's been sentenced (until next time he breaks the law).
One thing the Americans do right is serving sentences consecutively not concurrently.
He had a criminal record, he'd not long been out of jail. Had a revolving door record of going in and out of jail.
One year suspended for someone who has a long revolving door track record of going in and out of jail for burglaries, then committing 20 more, do you really think that's appropriate?
Good to see this timely piece from Cycle. There was a good one too from Janice Turner in the Times. These are not leftist culture warriors. They are neither politicizing the issue nor attacking men. They are talking about one of the biggest issues women face in their fight for true emancipation - misogyny.
This manifests as objectification and belittlement. At the individual level it does not necessarily lead to a crime. Indeed it usually doesn’t. But the more misogyny there is in society the more misogynistic crimes – i.e. crimes of violence and harassment against women - there will be. This is not my truth or women’s truth. It’s the truth.
So this week we’ve had a particularly extreme example and it’s shone a light on the wider topic. That sometimes happens with these things – e.g. George Floyd, Harvey Weinstein – and as per usual many of those not disadvantaged by the status quo dislike it. Hence the focus on deflective strawmen such as #notallmen and 6pm male curfews.
I hope all of that nonsense is ignored and we do have a serious push on reducing the level of misogyny in society. It’s not a matter of changing the law but of changing attitudes and behaviour.
For example, imagine a man who is in the habit of objectifying and belittling women and as a consequence of a social movement along the lines of ‘metoo’ feels less comfortable in doing so. That’s a win. Even if he carries on, it’s a win. If he stops, all the better. And if he not only stops but starts objecting when he comes across others doing it, that’s a big win. Ditto if he never was a culprit – as lots of men aren’t – but in the past had chosen to ignore it.
This is how you change things here. Social pressure leading to micro changes in millions of men. Add it all up and in quite a short time you can see a transformation.
#misogyno
If men want things to change they have to play their part. They are fathers, brothers, uncles, sons, colleagues. They work and live with women. They have helped shape the world as it is. They can help shape a better world. Or they can just sit there saying they they're not guilty and pretend there is nothing they could do.
I have seen this in banking. Lots of people behaved impeccably and were, rightly, furious that their good name and hard work and reputation and professionalism were damaged - in they eyes of others - by the crooks. Of course it was unfair.
But you know what: when it came to doing the hard work to change the culture it was those people who had to do it, who had to think about what they were doing right and how to share it and spread it amongst others. They had to think about what was wrong and why it was wrong and how they could stop it. They had to realise that silence isn't enough, that you have to intervene and call out bad behaviour.
And that's what I'm suggesting that decent men, of which I expect you are one, need to do. If we want to improve our society for the better.
Now why is this hard to understand or agree with? Why do some see this as criticism? Why are some being so defensive when a woman points this out?
https://twitter.com/MarcDavenant/status/1370999581132079104
That can't be right, can it? Or do we always ignore the last couple of days for hospitalisation date?
Shame about the third umpire, but hey ho.
I find it hard to believe that someone just out of prison, committing the offence stated (in the way stated) could have avoided a custodial sentence.
In particular, the offence would have been categorised as greater than normal harm, as you were present when it took place. And - if they were not long released from prison - it would also have fallen under the greater seriousness category.
You weren't on the thread much but suddenly popped up and went for him with both barrels posting a polemic in response starting with "Oh, do stop whining.."
Not surprisingly, that turned him off. And it got close to turning me off too.
I think we all want this unfair skewing of risk and responsibility against women to end. But the words and language you use to mobilise your allies is important, and needs to be measured - not uncompromising.
Govt is going to be very hard pressed to hold the line if schools don't lead to a spike in numbers. I suppose the point is that they are very keen to lift lockdowns universally and therefore will move with the slowest ship in the convoy. Which i guess is ultimately fair enough if we don't want to repeat mistakes of last summer.
Hard to have much faith in the criminal justice system after that.
The Police Officer was quite apologetic when he called me to let me know the sentence.
Young children would be obsessed with touching and feeling their hair, whilst smiling and laughing.
Young men would literally just stop what they were doing wherever they were, and stare - for ages, but do nothing else.
So, it felt intensely curious and perhaps a tad irritating, but not hostile.
Speaking of the events that day One Suffragette noted: "Several times constables and plain-clothes men who were in the crowds passed their arms round me from the back and clutched hold of my breasts in as public a manner as possible, and men in the crowd followed their example my skirt was lifted up as high as possible, and the constable attempted to lift me off the ground by raising his knee. This he could not do, so he threw me into the crowd and incited the men to treat me as they wished".
May Billinghurst, a disabled Suffragette who used a wheelchair said:
"At first, the police threw me out of the wheelchair on to the ground in a very brutal manner. Secondly, when on the machine again, they tried to push me along with my arms twisted behind me in a very painful position, with one of my fingers bent right back, which caused me great agony. Thirdly, they took me down a side road and left me in the middle of a hooligan crowd, first taking all the valves out of the wheels and pocketing them, so that I could not move the wheelchair.”
At least two women were beaten to death by the police on Black Friday and there were multiple accounts of serious sexual assault by police officers that day. Winston Churchill as Home Secretary encouraged the violent response by police and then blocked a proposed public inquiry.
"Femicide is on the extreme end of a continuum of antifemale terror that includes a wide variety of verbal and physical abuse, such as rape, torture, sexual slavery (particularly in prostitution), incestuous and extrafamilial child sexual abuse, physical and emotional battery, sexual harassment (on the phone, in the streets, at the office, and in the classroom), genital mutilation (clitoridectomies, excision, infibulations), unnecessary gynecological operations (gratuitous hysterectomies), forced heterosexuality, forced sterilization, forced motherhood (by criminalizing contraception and abortion), psychosurgery, denial of food to women in some cultures, cosmetic surgery, and other mutilations in the name of beautification. Whenever these forms of terrorism result in death, they become femicides."[16]
She includes covert killings of women as well, such as the mass murder of female babies due to male preference in cultures such as India and China, as well as deaths related to the failure of social institutions, such as the criminalization of abortion or the prevalence of female genital mutilation.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femicide