Met police officer charged over Everard murder

[Darran]

When have women been told to stay inside recently then?

There was an instruction to women in the Clapham area and surrounds from the Met last week to stay inside after dark. That was the whole point of why she said what she did.

She made the point that women being told to stay in after dark is putting a curfew on potential victims, not potential perpetrators. She was absolutely correct to point out the problem.

The issue is, that as usual, people have only taken what she said and got absolutely the wrong end of the stick of the poin5 being made. Because men don’t actually ever give a toss that women are being told to stay in. It’s only when they are affected they care.

Got a link?

Oh and “men don’t actually ever give a toss that women are being told to stay in” is another disgrace.

What you obviously meant is some men.
No women should never be afraid to walk the streets of Britain alone in 2021.

 

[Darran]

Patronising towards you love, and only because of your patronising attitude to almost anything anyone post, yes love, you have been doing it for years.

If you can't take it and all that...

Laughing at your little insecurity complex.

You probably don’t realise that attitudes like yours, where your first thought is how oppressed you feel when someone points out the sort of stuff women are constantly subjected to (you realise telling women all the time to stay at home because some men can’t be trusted is a curfew right?) is part of the problem. And when it’s pointed out to you, if a woman has the temerity to point it out, you resort to attempting to patronise.

A woman telling you you’re wrong is not patronising you swanjaxs. We are allowed to do that, you know. If your only response is trying to belittle us, then you are the issue.

What did he initially say that was wrong?

 

[Jack2jack]

When have women been told to stay inside recently then?

There was an instruction to women in the Clapham area and surrounds from the Met last week to stay inside after dark. That was the whole point of why she said what she did.

She made the point that women being told to stay in after dark is putting a curfew on potential victims, not potential perpetrators. She was absolutely correct to point out the problem.

The issue is, that as usual, people have only taken what she said and got absolutely the wrong end of the stick of the poin5 being made. Because men don’t actually ever give a toss that women are being told to stay in. It’s only when they are affected they care.

Surely that instruction for women to stay indoors, was made before the arrest of the actual perpetrator. If that were the case the instruction seems sensible to me, given the crime committed.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Patronising towards you love, and only because of your patronising attitude to almost anything anyone post, yes love, you have been doing it for years.

If you can't take it and all that...

Laughing at your little insecurity complex.

You probably don’t realise that attitudes like yours, where your first thought is how oppressed you feel when someone points out the sort of stuff women are constantly subjected to (you realise telling women all the time to stay at home because some men can’t be trusted is a curfew right?) is part of the problem. And when it’s pointed out to you, if a woman has the temerity to point it out, you resort to attempting to patronise.

A woman telling you you’re wrong is not patronising you swanjaxs. We are allowed to do that, you know. If your only response is trying to belittle us, then you are the issue.

Haha I've got a woman at home constantly telling me I'm wrong love...

Look, you seem to have got your knickers in a bunch simply because I had the temerity to point out a 6pm curfew would never be allowed.

Now, you might have me down as a "male chauvinist pig", in fact you obviously do, but what Londonlisa thinks about me won't stop my world revolving.

Have a nice day sweetheart.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Laughing at your little insecurity complex.

You probably don’t realise that attitudes like yours, where your first thought is how oppressed you feel when someone points out the sort of stuff women are constantly subjected to (you realise telling women all the time to stay at home because some men can’t be trusted is a curfew right?) is part of the problem. And when it’s pointed out to you, if a woman has the temerity to point it out, you resort to attempting to patronise.

A woman telling you you’re wrong is not patronising you swanjaxs. We are allowed to do that, you know. If your only response is trying to belittle us, then you are the issue.

What did he initially say that was wrong?

Don't bother mate, she was obviously just looking to pick a quarrel

 

[JackSomething]

What did he initially say that was wrong?

Don't bother mate, she was obviously just looking to pick a quarrel

I'd say it was more that you thought the 6pm curfew for men was a serious suggestion and was actually being considered. It's clear it wasn't a serious suggestion, but an attempt to make men think how it feels for women to be told not to go out after dark. Judging from the squealing from the likes of the Tory councillor Darran mentioned, she had a fair point.

 

[Darran]

What did he initially say that was wrong?

Don't bother mate, she was obviously just looking to pick a quarrel

I like Lisa but I’m clearly missing something here.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Don't bother mate, she was obviously just looking to pick a quarrel

I like Lisa but I’m clearly missing something here.

Seems pretty simple to me, some people have got the wrong end of the stick and have gone running with it like they were in a relay. Swanjaxs is spot on, a 6pm curfew for all men is a daft suggestion, an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties, unworkable and unenforceable.

But it was never really suggested as a serious solution to the problem of violence against women. From what I understand, Baroness Whatsername was talking in the context of suggestions in the immediate wake of the Everard murder that women should stay indoors after dark to ensure their own safety. So the tongue in cheek suggestion from the Baroness was "hang on, why should women stay indoors after dark? Why don't we make all men stay indoors after dark instead? Same result and doesn't put the onus on the victims?"

So to summarise, no one has seriously suggested a 6pm curfew for all men. The fact that this is what the debate has boiled down to for some people is a massive trivialisation of what is a serious issue.

 

[Darran]

I like Lisa but I’m clearly missing something here.

Seems pretty simple to me, some people have got the wrong end of the stick and have gone running with it like they were in a relay. Swanjaxs is spot on, a 6pm curfew for all men is a daft suggestion, an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties, unworkable and unenforceable.

But it was never really suggested as a serious solution to the problem of violence against women. From what I understand, Baroness Whatsername was talking in the context of suggestions in the immediate wake of the Everard murder that women should stay indoors after dark to ensure their own safety. So the tongue in cheek suggestion from the Baroness was "hang on, why should women stay indoors after dark? Why don't we make all men stay indoors after dark instead? Same result and doesn't put the onus on the victims?"

So to summarise, no one has seriously suggested a 6pm curfew for all men. The fact that this is what the debate has boiled down to for some people is a massive trivialisation of what is a serious issue.

Yes but it’s a little bit more than tongue in cheek if it’s suggested by a member of the House of Lords in a speech inside the House.

Swanjaxs and I both know what’s going on that’s why we’ve both tried to dismiss the curfew comments as complete and utter bollox.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Seems pretty simple to me, some people have got the wrong end of the stick and have gone running with it like they were in a relay. Swanjaxs is spot on, a 6pm curfew for all men is a daft suggestion, an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties, unworkable and unenforceable.

But it was never really suggested as a serious solution to the problem of violence against women. From what I understand, Baroness Whatsername was talking in the context of suggestions in the immediate wake of the Everard murder that women should stay indoors after dark to ensure their own safety. So the tongue in cheek suggestion from the Baroness was "hang on, why should women stay indoors after dark? Why don't we make all men stay indoors after dark instead? Same result and doesn't put the onus on the victims?"

So to summarise, no one has seriously suggested a 6pm curfew for all men. The fact that this is what the debate has boiled down to for some people is a massive trivialisation of what is a serious issue.

Yes but it’s a little bit more than tongue in cheek if it’s suggested by a member of the House of Lords in a speech inside the House.

Swanjaxs and I both know what’s going on that’s why we’ve both tried to dismiss the curfew comments as complete and utter bollox.

No it isn't - unless you want to continue to pretend it was a serious suggestion when you know it wasn't. If you do, I can't help you further.

 

[Swanjaxs]

I like Lisa but I’m clearly missing something here.

Seems pretty simple to me, some people have got the wrong end of the stick and have gone running with it like they were in a relay. Swanjaxs is spot on, a 6pm curfew for all men is a daft suggestion, an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties, unworkable and unenforceable.

But it was never really suggested as a serious solution to the problem of violence against women. From what I understand, Baroness Whatsername was talking in the context of suggestions in the immediate wake of the Everard murder that women should stay indoors after dark to ensure their own safety. So the tongue in cheek suggestion from the Baroness was "hang on, why should women stay indoors after dark? Why don't we make all men stay indoors after dark instead? Same result and doesn't put the onus on the victims?"

So to summarise, no one has seriously suggested a 6pm curfew for all men. The fact that this is what the debate has boiled down to for some people is a massive trivialisation of what is a serious issue.

Fair mate, but "daft" really was ment to mean it wasn't to be taken seriously, unfortunately, someone decided to wade in on me, never mind, broad shoulders and all that

 

[Darran]

Yes but it’s a little bit more than tongue in cheek if it’s suggested by a member of the House of Lords in a speech inside the House.

Swanjaxs and I both know what’s going on that’s why we’ve both tried to dismiss the curfew comments as complete and utter bollox.

No it isn't - unless you want to continue to pretend it was a serious suggestion when you know it wasn't. If you do, I can't help you further.

Yes it is. It’s only been reported and questions asked because of who and where it was asked.
After she”d said it some thick twat of a journalist even asked Drakeford about it which has clearly made matters worse amongst the thicko element.
I don’t need your help Sonny.

 

[ABSwan]

I like Lisa but I’m clearly missing something here.

Seems pretty simple to me, some people have got the wrong end of the stick and have gone running with it like they were in a relay. Swanjaxs is spot on, a 6pm curfew for all men is a daft suggestion, an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties, unworkable and unenforceable.

But it was never really suggested as a serious solution to the problem of violence against women. From what I understand, Baroness Whatsername was talking in the context of suggestions in the immediate wake of the Everard murder that women should stay indoors after dark to ensure their own safety. So the tongue in cheek suggestion from the Baroness was "hang on, why should women stay indoors after dark? Why don't we make all men stay indoors after dark instead? Same result and doesn't put the onus on the victims?"

So to summarise, no one has seriously suggested a 6pm curfew for all men. The fact that this is what the debate has boiled down to for some people is a massive trivialisation of what is a serious issue.

I'm totally lost.

If I'm correct in my thinking, there was no curfew for men or women.

There was a message from the police suggesting women should not go out after dark, because there was a danger that some deranged man is on the prowl and could attack/kill them (I assume this was a specific area as well?)

I'm unsure, as I never seen this message, if it was a blanket suggestion that women should not go out, or should not go out alone, walk the street alone etc. In other words, stay safe.

A curfew is mandatory as far as I know, so it wasn't a curfew?

Someone in the House of Lords suggested that men should stay in instead.

That suggestion was not meant as a serious suggestion, just tongue in cheek.

So after all the fuss, what is the issue? The fact that women are being advised to stay safe?

If men stay in is not a serious suggestion, then what is the person in the House of Lords trying to say? What is the real alternative if men staying in wasn't after all a serious suggestion?

I'm confused.

 

[Darran]

Lisa owes swanjaxs an apology.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Lisa owes swanjaxs an apology.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: