Met police officer charged over Everard murder

[Darran]

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.

The biggest issue of all is that there’s so many thick twats out there that will believe anything.
If I remember from Twitter the headline that suggested Drakeford was thinking about a curfew for all men cane from The Sun.
Says it all really.

 

[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.

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.

To be fair mate, rounding a bend is enough to confuse you so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

 

[Darran]

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.

To be fair mate, rounding a bend is enough to confuse you so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

:lol:

 

[sainthelens]

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.

The biggest issue of all is that there’s so many thick twats out there that will believe anything.
If I remember from Twitter the headline that suggested Drakeford was thinking about a curfew for all men cane from The Sun.
Says it all really.

Perhaps it's best to believe something that was said on camera and not written online somewhere.
Too many twats spend too much time on Twitter .

 

[Darran]

The biggest issue of all is that there’s so many thick twats out there that will believe anything.
If I remember from Twitter the headline that suggested Drakeford was thinking about a curfew for all men cane from The Sun.
Says it all really.

Perhaps it's best to believe something that was said on camera and not written online somewhere.
Too many twats spend too much time on Twitter .

This is all your fault. :lol:

 

[Swanjaxs]

Anyway, I'm sticking to the Football Board from now on, that way I can just blend in with all the other twàts and not get noticed as much

 

[Swanjaxs]

Perhaps it's best to believe something that was said on camera and not written online somewhere.
Too many twats spend too much time on Twitter .

This is all your fault. :lol:

All this thread needs now is for Benny to steam in :lol:

 

[Darran]

This is all your fault. :lol:

All this thread needs now is for Benny to steam in :lol:

He avoids threads where politicians are mentioned because he’s not old enough to vote.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

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.

It’s sensible for potential victims to be restricted rather than potential perpetrators?

That’s like saying that people with the potential for causing terrorist attacks are the only ones who should freely wander around whereas those who may be harmed in such attacks should stay inside.

What’s actually sensible is that we concentrate on the actual problem which is that a small minority of men have a propensity for extreme, often sexual violence. This is exacerbated by a larger minority of men thinking it’s fine to harass and /or abuse women.
And exacerbated even further by having a police force that seem unable to police with common sense, made worse by a government that seem hellbent on removing people’s freedoms and creating false culture wars.
We should be asking what we as a society can do about it.
Because make no mistake, the laws that they are trying to pass at the moment have the whiff of bullying authoritarianism. No right to protest where it may cause annoyance? Enforced by Patel and her willing lackies at the Met?

 

[Londonlisa2001]

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.

I
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.

don’t have you down as a male chauvinist pig. I have you down as a bit dull.

 

[Swanjaxs]

I
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.

don’t have you down as a male chauvinist pig. I have you down as a bit dull.

And I have you down as a patronising faceless little nomark. X

 

[Londonlisa2001]

don’t have you down as a male chauvinist pig. I have you down as a bit dull.

And I have you down as a patronising faceless little nomark. X

Reacting to an obviously lighthearted remark with a nasty little temper isn’t a great look given what’s being discussed.

 

[Darran]

And I have you down as a patronising faceless little nomark. X

Reacting to an obviously lighthearted remark with a nasty little temper isn’t a great look given what’s being discussed.

He did put a kiss at the end mind.

 

[Swanjaxs]

And I have you down as a patronising faceless little nomark. X

Reacting to an obviously lighthearted remark with a nasty little temper isn’t a great look given what’s being discussed.

Being called "a little dull" lighthearted...

Nah, just another spiteful little dig by you sweetheart.

Now, off you go back to your very own superior little word.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Reacting to an obviously lighthearted remark with a nasty little temper isn’t a great look given what’s being discussed.

Being called "a little dull" lighthearted...

Nah, just another spiteful little dig by you sweetheart.

Now, off you go back to your very own superior little word.

Come on LL hurry up and get the last word in that you crave so much