What part of growing problem is confusing you? Its the young. Not the old.
I don't think this bunch are Andrew Tate supporters tbh!
Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?
- Thread starter Chris Wilson
- Start date
What part of growing problem is confusing you? Its the young. Not the old.
I don't think this bunch are Andrew Tate supporters tbh!
I've already posted the evidence in this thread.
Dont mean they cant die young.
Wasnt my post, but 169 if you want to refute it.
I expect you won't though, outside of the usual response from leftists.
There where tailban calling for him to be let out of Jail
Is Tate not you referring to since he's a BAME immigrant?
He's over the age bracket I'm afraid. I may have underestimated his appeal however I suspect the taliban more did that just to whinge at the west because he's a muslim
Taliban reportedly ‘worried about Andrew Tate’ after arrest
The Taliban “say westerners need Andrew Tate because we are oppressed by feminists,” former Miss New Jersey Sameera Khan tweeted Saturday.
nypost.com
Not a quote from someone here, that's the Taliban
Last edited:
As long as the definition of a creep isn't as subjective as the details proposed in the bill from the op I doubt normal people would have an issueHere's an idea... let's have an all female institution seperate from the police and military with lets say 'camps' whose whole purpose is to seek out creeps and 'reeducate' them, problem solved. Just don't be a creep.
UK law has held that it's objective for the last 150+ year but yea, keep insisting that it's subjective.As long as the definition of a creep isn't as subjective as the details proposed in the bill from the op I doubt normal people would have an issue
Your link is to an article about an 1856 ruling on what constitutes negligence with respect to an organisation installing a fire hydrant in a street. In what way is that relevant to a contempory definition of "creep"?
In any case, the ruling you referred to was not objective. It hangs entirely on the term "reasonable person"(*), which is defined wholly subjectively by whoever has enough power to impose their definition. Since you're referring to the use of the term in 1856, are you arguing that we should apply 1856 ideas of what constitutes reasonable behaviour to everyone today? That would make an awful lot of people criminals, including many women.
* The wording of the judgement was "reasonable man", but that was in 1856 and in 1856 (and thousands more years) "man" was the English word for "a person". It's only very recently that it's become male-specific.
Last edited:
Says the person shouting at 150+ years of UK case law.
No, in relevance to what a reasonable person is. You know the part of the sentence where "isn't as subjective as the details proposed in the bill" was mentioned.
Also that it was in 1856 is irrelevant because it's still used in case law to this day when defining what a reasonable person is.
I know people in GD can be a bit ropey when it comes to the English language but even i didn't think i would need to spell it out, turns out i was wrong.
Last edited:
We'll give you a little clue as to why the aspects of the bill are subjective (spoiler alert it's not the accused and the definition of a reasonable person, it's the 'victim's' definition of what does and does not constitute 'intentional harassment, alarm or distress' and the subsequent 3rd party's definition).
Person A - looks at a woman, smiles and approaches.
Person B - looks at a woman, smiles and approaches.
One of these situations is welcome, the other meets the woman's criteria for what the bill outlines. Both situations are identical, but she has decided one of the men looks 'creepy' so goes to the police to report the 'crime'.
Wouldn't happen you say, well a few years ago men wouldn't be called out for making women uncomfortable in the gym. Their crime?.. Looking in the general direction of women with a tripod for a split second. Under the proposed law if you do that you are now ****** should someone decide they want to prosecute.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
link?
Post 169.
Yea, no. You know who defines harassment? The legal system.
Just because someone says something it doesn't magically become true.
Why does that even matter?As long as the definition of a creep isn't as subjective as the details proposed in the bill from the op I doubt normal people would have an issue
Just keep your head down or it's Gulag time.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,308
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Both my Nan's died in the 80s, one had purple hair and the other had green hair, they never give me any problems.
They weren't lesbians either because there was no such thing back then.
Yea, no. You know who defines harassment? The legal system.
Just because someone says something it doesn't magically become true.
You do know harassment was already covered under a multitude of different laws previously right? Nothing quite so vague and subjective as what this bill proposes though.