Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?

Chris Wilson

Chris Wilson

Chris Wilson

Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
10,695
Location
Shropshire
Another ludicrous law based on impossible to quantify opinions is trying to be slipped quietly onto the statute book. If you fancy some bint expressing your interest could get you your collar felt if she decides you are harassing her. Quantifying "harassing" and by what metrics a "reasonable person", (as opposed to some vindictive, humourless vixen), may determine it to be such, is something you and her will presumably have to argue in the courts. Ain't life fun....?


The new Bill, due for its final report stage in the House of Commons on Friday, will make it an offence to cause “intentional harassment, alarm or distress” to a person in public based on their sex. Offenders will face a maximum of two years in jail.

However, campaigners said there was a loophole in the proposals that would let offenders escape prosecution by claiming they thought their behaviour was welcome, even if any other reasonable person felt it was not.

Mrs Braverman has now accepted their concerns and is backing an amendment that will close the loophole, by requiring a “reasonableness test” where a defendant “ought to know” their behaviour amounted to harassment.

This means anyone who catcalls, wolf-whistles or makes a pass or sexual comment towards a woman that a “reasonable” person would feel amounts to harassment will no longer be able to claim it was meant as a compliment or joke. Police will be issued with guidance so they can enforce the law.


 
Last edited:
Looks like my go to chat up line of "Are you a goer?", may have to be retired.... Presumably I will now have to get my solicitor to draft some letter of polite and tentative expression of interest to be sent registered post to any filly in a short skirt that gets the old blood flowing :(
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
That trauma sounds deep - are you OK @Chris Wilson? Do you need a hug buddy? :)


Quite. It reeks of insecurities in the ability to talk to the opposite sex that then gets brushed off by betacucks as "bants". It's odd behaviour all around.
Click to expand...

I have never really considered a building site awash with muscled, bronzed and tattooed bricklayers wolf whistling at the talent passing by the epitome of male insecurity to be honest.

Perhaps you should have a mano e mano with the next one you see using their prowess as a siffleur to show their appreciation of a woman...? ;)
 
I suspect there's not much whistling in the Speaker's Corner, just downcast eyes and a mumbled apology as their eyes stray onto some deliciously common bit sashaying down the street :)
 
Devilman said:
Breaking News:

Misogynistic Fossil expresses views that so out of date they belong in a Museum.


And now, onto the Weather.
Click to expand...

Misogynistic fossil expresses criticism of capitalisations that belong in a kindergarten ;)

And now, onto some to totty whistling, whilst it gets less chance of porridge than physical assault.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
Yes loads.
One band I was in in 1975 had 3 members who showed zero interest in sex and I know two of them have never had partners.
I worked at the Michelin with 12,000 workers and at Creda with a total of around 8000 workers and yes loads of them.
They even showed zero interest in the masses of porn tapes that were freely available.
In recent years I can only point to three including Adam I may be with later.
One of them called Denis turned round one day in the bog and he had got the biggest todger I've ever seen but it's never been used.
Click to expand...

Makes a mental note to keep a discrete distance from Foxy in the urinals.... Do your band often swing them about in the urinals, or was it purely for your personal admiration of his mint condition gargantuan? ;)
 
Roar87 said:
I don't think whistling at a woman or staring should be a crime, though at the same time people shouldn't do it. I think society should be better at dealing with that behaviour.
Click to expand...

The whole female orientated fashion and beauty industries are there to serve the desire of women to have people, mainly men, but jealous women too, stare at them. Even, (if now said in whispered tones), to have men ogle and hopefully verbally compliment them, hopefully courteously, but coarsely serves many of their purposes.

The desired result is similar, even if the delivery is sometimes eclectically wanting :)
 
Fabricating a rape claim is tricky without physical evidence, although many women have attempted such acts of vindictiveness, but claims of inappropriate whistling or of a remark deemed potentially offensive are much more easily flung out in a moment of retribution, frustration, jealousy or anger.

Will inappropriate facial expressions be next to legislated against?

These onerous laws against any banter or risque compliment are the mental equivalent of the de-beaking and de-spurring of battery hens, an attempt to bring unnatural overcrowding and incompatible cultural mixing under government control rather than fix the real issues.
 
Last edited:
wesimmo said:
A general rule of thumb would be, if this legislation bothers you, you're not a reasonable person.
Click to expand...

The legal test of a "reasonable person" that someone suggested I look up is claimed to be an objective test, whilst in reality any such metric is highly subjective. The test in tort was devised as a test of the actions of the perpetrator, but its now seemingly shifted to the belief of the recipient.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom