Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 14,091
- Location
- La France
Well Adele and Lionel Richie better watch their step in future
Nah, they'll safe.
Now if a white male did the same, the police would be on him like a tramp on chips.
Give Police 24hr Notice of Sex.
- Thread starter doofer
- Start date
Nah, they'll safe.
Now if a white male did the same, the police would be on him like a tramp on chips.
Unless, of course, its a good looking man. Then its seen as a compliment
Have you seen that '10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman' video on youtube? Its obvious that was harassment because the 'harassing' was done by low value, lower class males. If it was rich City types there wouldn't have been an issue
Effectively, that's exactly what it is.
The PIN form will have the allegation that's been made on it.
PIN are very useful, CPS love them and they are very useful in a court case. No way you can say you didn't know your behaviour was causing someone to be harassed if you've signed a notice telling you so.
The majority of harassment I've dealt with have been simple unwanted contact, often from ex-partners. No threats (to send a threat electronically being an offence itself anywat), just usually "I love you" "I want you back" etc etc. Without a PIN CPS won't authorise a charge, but with you'll usually get a conviction.
Is it respectful to inflict a permanent official record on someone for saying "hello", formally labelling them as an abuser for the rest of their life without even a theoretical chance of a defence? Part of the point of harassment rules is that they're deliberately created to make defence impossible because doing so would require the ability to read minds.
I'm not convinced that it is respectful. Especially when irrational prejudices are involved, as they inevitably are because they are sadly common in society.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
What is it with people being melodramatic? A PIN is not evidence of abuse, it assumes no guilt. It's simply a way to tell someone that a particular person doesn't want any further contact.
You also need to remember that PINs aren't handed out to everyone that is accused of harassment. Officers have discretion about where its appropriate and usually you get a good idea of what's happening by viewing texts, Facebook messages etc. You won't have the full story, but you will know if there's a story to work out.
Don't be silly.
If a man has a formal police record of being considered guilty of harassing a woman, people will assume that he's guilty. Even if was "just" a warning (and it isn't really, since it's considered evidence of guilt in court), few people would dismiss it.A simple unsubstantiated accusation by a person in a higher status group against a person in a lower status group is enough to cause widespread assumption of guilt. When it's the police doing it, when it's a formal action by the arm of the state tasked with upholding the law and maintaining good order, the assumption is stronger and more widespread.
Thank you for clarifying that a PIN is an assumption of guilt and considered proof of guilt. The idea that there might or might not be some sort of perfunctory beginning of an investigation beforehand doesn't change that. Besides, it would be risky for a police officer to refuse to issue a PIN if a person in a "right" biological group wanted it done. THIS POLICE OFFICER WON'T PROTECT WOMEN FROM HARASSMENT! It could cause a lot of trouble for them and for the police force they work for. I know courage is required for the job, but there are limits.
I know and talk with a lot of people who were alive in the 1950s, including quite a few who were adults in the 1950s. Several hundred, due to my job.
Every single one of them who has said anything about the subject has said exactly the same thing you've just replied to - that people were far more polite, far more respectful to each and there was a far stronger sense of community.
About one quarter of those people are "white" men. My mother, who was a woman in the 1950s, has said repeatedly that women were better off in the UK in the 1950s than they are now. That's a common view amongst women who were women in the 1950s. I work in bingo, so many of the people I talk with are women old enough to have been adults in the 1950s. I have quite a large sample size.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you're basing your views on modern prejudices (referring to men as "males" is a particularly strong indication of that) rather than any evidence at all.
I don't agree with either side, by the way. Their view is tinged by the rosy spectacles of remembered youth. Your view is tinged by the ordure-smeared spectacles of dominant prejudices.
Personally, based on my knowledge of history and my listening to numerous people talk about their lives in that time, I think that society today is much better than society in the 1950s but mostly due to advances in technology. Although those have brought new problems, mainly the almost total loss of jobs in most areas of work. In purely social terms, 1950s England was worse in some ways and better in others. I think that 2010s England is better overall, but it's not the vast improvement that it's commonly portrayed as being. Changes in society often result in widespread false impressions of the past. Sometimes mutually exclusive ones, e.g. the middle ages were a time of honourous chivalry, courtly romance, advanced learning, exquisite manners and bold heroes...while at the same time life was nasty, brutish and short and everyone was dressed in dirt and rags and died of plagues and were oppressed and oppressed everyone they could.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Have you considered that people generally have fond memories of when they were "younger" and retrospectively mistake the more happy-go-lucky attitude they had then compared to the older bitter them now with reality?
My mum was born in 1947 and has the same "everything was better in my day" outlook too. But ask her about being young and what my grandparents used to say to her then and you get the same thing.... That being her parents thoughts "kids were out of control" and not like when they were kids in the 20s when children were all polite and never committed any crime. No doubt my great-grand parents would say the kids of the 1880s were the best behaved and so on.
Children of the 50s and 60s will complain about today's 'feral youth' but then pass off the weekly riots, violence and vandalism caused by the mods and rockers at beach resorts as some kind of harmless fun. If Chavs and Emos insisted on going to have organised mass brawls every weekend now there'd be uproar about how young people are out of control and how we'd never seen such despicable behaviour from young people.
For example, every generation thinks the music from their youth was the best and anything that came out after they had kids/turned 30 is dirge? Same principle
Last edited:
A PIN does not constitute a 'formal police record', is not an assumption of guilt, and certainly isn't evidence of guilt in court either. The issue of a PIN is based on the evidence available and the accusation made, and nothing to do with biological group or status.
You're basing your post on a number of assumptions that are nonsense.
PINs aren't recorded by the police?
People don't assume that an official record by the police implies guilt, especially when guilt is often assumed even without that record?
A man accusing a woman of harassment will be regarded in exactly the same way as a woman accusing a man of harassment?
I think you're basing your post on assumptions that are nonsense.
/voteban +1
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
They are, but then so are the details of someone who stops at the scene of a road traffic collision to help. I'm sure we'd both agree there was no assumption of guilt there.
A PIN is simply a way to avoid a defence if it ever went further and gives someone the opportunity to avoid any further police involvement.
Yes. As are witnesses and victims of crimes, registered keepers of motor vehicles, business owners, anyone who contacts the police to report an incident, keyholders, neighbourhood watch co-ordinators, and countless other things. None of those would imply a person's guilt either. Only a conviction of a crime in court would do that.
No. Or not by anyone who would have access to the information anyway.
Yes.
I'm basing my posts on factual knowledge of the subject at hand and first hand experience. And you?
None of which involve anything criminal, so they're obviously not the same sort of thing.
That might be theoretically true in a strictly legal sense, but it isn't true in reality. A conviction in court isn't required for a person to be thought to be guilty. A formal notice by the police will certainly do, except for people who automatically assume the police are always wrong.
So it's not ever available to anyone other than a trained professional who even thinks according to a strict interpretation of "innocent unless proven guilty"? Never disclosed on a background check, for example? Never referred to on social media by anyone outside the police?
No. Maybe by the police, but not in general.
General society rather than the police, who aren't normal in many respects regarding the law (and shouldn't be - it's right for them to be more impartial and more rational).
Legally the Police are allowed to disclose details of a PIN on an enhanced DBS or PVG check as 'Other Relevant Information', no guilt required, should they decide it's necessary.
Police are also able to disclose information from their intelligence systems on enhanced checks and even the police on this forum cant deny that some intelligence, albeit it's graded as such, can be no more than a rumour that's been passed to them by a member of the public. It doesn't stop it from being recorded on the Intelligence Database.