Jack2jack said:
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?