Has making a pass at a woman just become illegal?

[StriderX]

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.

If only people would stop electing morons into government who just want an easy ride rebadging old as new every 6 months.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Post 169.

so the problem is a tiny percentage of the population that is black/Asian and of that population a even tinier percentage have misogynistic views in their young men and some are sex offenders. The way you are talking made me think we had a huge problem with our young men becoming sex offenders on the horizon. Glad that isn't the case.

 

[C Kent]

What is amusing is that the definition of 'a reasonable person' changes depending on a lot of differing factors. You've got criminal law v civil law which has 2 different sets of standards and secondly the objective standard of what a reasonable person is falls down entirely when you bring certain religious aspects into play. Age can also factor into it.

There is no set in stone definition of a reasonable person despite Murphs insistence that there is.

 

[Dis86]

so the problem is a tiny percentage of the population that is black/Asian and of that population a even tinier percentage have misogynistic views in their young men and some are sex offenders. The way you are talking made me think we had a huge problem with our young men becoming sex offenders on the horizon. Glad that isn't the case.

I'm confused. Is this not a major issue? Women are seemingly terrified to go out and we need new laws to protect them. 30% is not a tiny percentage of the largest group of offenders. Its also a massive overrepresentation of a population segment that is growing.

 

[Chris Wilson]

so the problem is a tiny percentage of the population that is black/Asian and of that population a even tinier percentage have misogynistic views in their young men and some are sex offenders. The way you are talking made me think we had a huge problem with our young men becoming sex offenders on the horizon. Glad that isn't the case.

Err, our two largest cities, Birmingham and London are now predominantly none white. The House of Commons looks like a photo shoot for the United Nations Christmas calendar, the left wing media clamour that "people of colour" are under represented (except in prison, which they conveniently never mention...) and Rotherham, Rochdale, Bradford, Oxford, Telford and Newcastle are, alongside many other towns and cities, having the shame of being named epicentres of the grooming of young girls by Asian and Asian descent men, mainly Pakistanis. Tiny percentage indeed.

Grooming gangs still abusing girls a decade after Rochdale scandal, says whistleblower​

A former detective says the police and authorities are still failing to take the matter seriously and are continuing to let victims down



By Martin Evans, Crime Editor 11 February 2023 • 6:00am

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...l-abusing-girls-decade-rochdale-scandal-says/

 

[jpaul]

Is this not a major issue? Women are seemingly terrified to go out and we need new laws to protect them

Much of the fear has been stoked by the press and social media (AI algorithms?) elevating risk above statistics (like the biggest risk is presented by strangers) - the needle spiking risk(myth) is a case in point too,
personal 'truth' trumps scientific fact (like stupid Prince Harry's recollection may vary)

 

[mattx4]

Its also a massive overrepresentation of a population segment that is growing.

I really don't think the data paints the picture you want it too after looking at it a bit more

So to start with as a baseline 82% of people in England and Wales are white, and 18% belong to a black, Asian, mixed or other ethnic group

Currently, there are 8,106 male sex offenders in the prisons of England and Wales. Of this group, 81.9% are White; 9.9% are Black/Black British; 5.6% are Asian/Asian British; and 2.2 are Other/mixed (the ethnicity of 0.4% is not
recorded)

So it broadly aligns to population demographics of the UK

the majority of BME offenders are
serving sentences for sexual offending against adults, in particular for rape. Black and Asian offenders constituting over 20 per cent of the group, (BME offenders are more likely to be convicted of sexual offences against adults to just over 7 percent for the group with child victims. BME offenders are more likely to be convicted of sexual offences against adults

So essentially BME adults are in jail for sexually assaulting adults and are over represented at the 21 to 30 age and whites are in jail for sexually assaulting under age and overrepresented at the 40 plus range. That's some uncomfortable truths for everyone there

 

[Dis86]

I really don't think the data paints the picture you want it too after looking at it a bit more

So to start with as a baseline 82% of people in England and Wales are white, and 18% belong to a black, Asian, mixed or other ethnic group



So it broadly aligns to population demographics of the UK



So essentially BME adults are in jail for sexually assaulting adults and are over represented at the 21 to 30 age and whites are in jail for sexually assaulting under age and overrepresented at the 40 plus range. That's some uncomfortable truths for everyone there

Missing the detail matt. The under 29 group is the focus here.

 

[dowie]

So it broadly aligns to population demographics of the UK

It clearly doesn't; 4% of the UK population is black yet they're 9.9% of those currently in prison for sexual assault... so 2.5 times as many vs the general population.

But of course this isn't sexual assault, this is a much lower level, vague offence and unless you're living in a bubble then it will also be quite apparent that calling out/approaching people in the street can be way more frequent in certain urban locations*, it's not just working-class builders.

*See the reactions to the 10 hours of walking in NYC video, a woman just walked around minding her own business in NYC with a guy in front of her covertly filming it, they then showed all of the harassment she experienced online... but of course, this was real life not a Gillette or UK government advert and that became "problematic":

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/01/360422087/hollaback-video-calls-out-catcallers-but-cuts-out-white-men

There's a video that's been circulating online since Tuesday, and it frames itself like this: a woman walks around New York City for 10 hours, with a camera secretly recording as she gets street-called 100 times by men.

The woman who does the walking is Shoshana Roberts. Most of the men who street-harass, call out and follow her are black and Latino. Noticeably absent from the video? White men.

 

[C Kent]

I remember that video, werent people insinuating the lack of white guys was becuse she didn't walk through white neighbourhoods or some such nonsense.

 

[Chris Wilson]

It clearly doesn't; 4% of the UK population is black yet they're 9.9% of those currently in prison for sexual assault... so 2.5 times as many vs the general population.

But of course this isn't sexual assault, this is a much lower level, vague offence and unless you're living in a bubble then it will also be quite apparent that calling out/approaching people in the street can be way more frequent in certain urban locations*, it's not just working-class builders.

*See the reactions to the 10 hours of walking in NYC video, a woman just walked around minding her own business in NYC with a guy in front of her covertly filming it, they then showed all of the harassment she experienced online... but of course, this was real life not a Gillette or UK government advert and that became "problematic":

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/01/360422087/hollaback-video-calls-out-catcallers-but-cuts-out-white-men

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

It clearly doesn't; 4% of the UK population is black yet they're 9.9% of those currently in prison for sexual assault... so 2.5 times as many vs the general population.

But of course this isn't sexual assault, this is a much lower level, vague offence and unless you're living in a bubble then it will also be quite apparent that calling out/approaching people in the street can be way more frequent in certain urban locations*, it's not just working-class builders.

*See the reactions to the 10 hours of walking in NYC video, a woman just walked around minding her own business in NYC with a guy in front of her covertly filming it, they then showed all of the harassment she experienced online... but of course, this was real life not a Gillette or UK government advert and that became "problematic":

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/01/360422087/hollaback-video-calls-out-catcallers-but-cuts-out-white-men

Pretty much all of that in the video is what Chris thinks is acceptable normal behaviour. And I'll say most of it seemed innocent enough, no real cat calls, no harassment that they showed, though some comments probably crossed the line.You could argue its a cultural thing. I'm sure similar things might happen in Paris or Italy.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I'm confused. Is this not a major issue? Women are seemingly terrified to go out and we need new laws to protect them. 30% is not a tiny percentage of the largest group of offenders. Its also a massive overrepresentation of a population segment that is growing.

I didn't say it was good. From your posts I assumed we were talking big numbers of young men, obviously 1 is too many but its not millions of men we are talking about. I just think your posts are a bit hyperbolic.

500k added between 2001 and 2021 and half of those would have course be women. Same was added in whites in the same period. Its hardly a growth pattern that is a major concern. In 40 years that is 2m

Missing the detail matt. The under 29 group is the focus here.

The white men and underage kids is irrelevant? So young black men overrepresented in sexual violence with adult women, white men over 40 are overrepresented in sexual violence with kids.

 

[Murphy]

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.

So in other words it's not in anyway subjective because 'harassment' is already defined in UK law, gotcha.

Turns out ignorance isn't just an excuse for some people, it's a way of life.

What is amusing is that the definition of 'a reasonable person' changes depending on a lot of differing factors. You've got criminal law v civil law which has 2 different sets of standards and secondly the objective standard of what a reasonable person is falls down entirely when you bring certain religious aspects into play. Age can also factor into it.

There is no set in stone definition of a reasonable person despite Murphs insistence that there is.

Not my insistence, 150+ years of UK laws instance. Maybe you should stand outside your local court and shout at them.

Err, our two largest cities, Birmingham and London are now predominantly none white.

Other white not white enough for you then?

 

[mattx4]

*See the reactions to the 10 hours of walking in NYC video, a woman just walked around minding her own business in NYC with a guy in front of her covertly filming it, they then showed all of the harassment she experienced online... but of course, this was real life not a Gillette or UK government advert and that became "problematic":

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/11/01/360422087/hollaback-video-calls-out-catcallers-but-cuts-out-white-men

NYC is particularly bad for this sort of behavior. Definitely a trend of it being from men who are on the lower end of the social economic class because those aren't the rich parts of NYC she's walking through. The creepy following is the worst imagine that happening late at night when the streets are empty that would be terrifying for most women.

 

[dowie]

NYC is particularly bad for this sort of behavior. Definitely a trend of it being from men who are on the lower end of the social economic class because those aren't the rich parts of NYC she's walking through. The creepy following is the worst imagine that happening late at night when the streets are empty that would be terrifying for most women.

The thing is I'm not sure the guys targeted by this sort of thing are necessarily more likely to do anything more than simply call out, someone earlier in the thread (Devilman IIRC) was posting about how they could stop people moving onto more serious crimes (sort of like the conservative ideas re: weed/cannabis as a gateway drug) but plenty of rapes are carried out by people known to the victim; date rape etc.. being an obvious example.

Also, the basement-dwelling incel types that many are worried about being influenced by Andrew Tate are likely too scared to approach women in bars let alone call out to or harass them in the street.

I'm not sure that working-class builders wolf-whistling or shouting out "alright luv" etc. and black guys wanting to "holla" at "shawty" are necessarily any more likely to become actual sex offenders on the basis that they engage in that sort of behaviour. This seems more related to comfort or social taboo than it is to risk.

 

[Angilion]

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.

You literally quoted the 1856 legal opinion defining negligence in the context of a court case about water damage caused by a fire hydrant. Negligence. Not "reasonable person".

You're wrong about your own posts and the stuff you link to and you're insulting people for actually reading your posts and the stuff you link to. That's poor form.

I'll repeat the other relevant part of my post:

[the term "reasonable person"] 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 idea that "reasonable person" is an objective term is simply wrong. It's wholly subjective, varying by culture, time and individual. Quoting 1856 legal opinions regarding negligence doesn't change that (and is barely relevant to it). Claiming that your subjective opinion about what is reasonable is objective reality doesn't make it so.

 

[Murphy]

You literally quoted the 1856 legal opinion defining negligence in the context of a court case about water damage caused by a fire hydrant. Negligence. Not "reasonable person".

I literally quoted a Wikipedia article that covers a 1856 legal case concerning reasonableness in the law of negligence, that first case and the one that set a precedence for what reasonableness is for the next 150+ years. One that's taught in A level legal studies to this day to teach students what a reasonable person is.

The important aspect regarding breach of duty is to apply the reasonable person test, established in the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks. This case defined 'fault' as doing something that a reasonable person would not do, or not doing something that a reasonable person would do. It is used for the ordinary person to establish whether or not they have breached the duty of care to the victim.

bits of law | Tort | Negligence | Breach of Duty: Standard of Care

Study note on standard of care and breach of duty in negligence. Free study and revision resources for law students (LLB Degree/GDL) on tort law and the English Legal System.

www.bitsoflaw.org

Reasonable man​

As a general rule, the standard of care required is an objective one, that of a reasonable man.

• Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781​

  Baron Alderson: .. Negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations, which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something, which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The standard demanded is thus not of perfection but of reasonableness. It is an objective standard taking no account of the defendant's incompetence - he may do the best he can and still be found negligent....
• The reasonable man is now often referred to as the reasonable person and has been described by judges in many memorable ways in cases.

• Hall v Brooklands Auto-Racing Club [1933] 1 KB 205​

  Greer LJ: .. the man on the Clapham omnibus....

• McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999] 3 WLR 1301​

  Lord Steyn: .. commuters on the London Underground....
• The reasonable person test is an objective one: What would a reasonable person have foreseen in the particular circumstances? Therefore, the defendant is required to take as much care as a reasonable person in his position.

• Glasgow Corp v Muir [1943] AC 448​

  Lord MacMillan: .. standard of foresight of the reasonable man is, in one sense, an impersonal test. It eliminates the personal equation and is independent of the idiosyncrasies of the particular person whose conduct is in question....

The Reasonable Man: Subjective or Objective?

The Student Lawyer discusses the case law surrounding the 'Reasonable Man' test. Is this a test that is subjective or objective?

thestudentlawyer.com

Alderson’s statement portrays the reasonable man as an objective figure whose decision is always the same and takes ‘no account of the defendant’s incompetence’. While this is true, case law proves that at times, the courts have been willing to adjust their decision to the competence of individuals, which makes one question whether the reasonable man is truly as objective as Alderson makes it out to be. Furthermore, Aldersons use of the reasonable ‘man’ is heavily reminiscent of the male-dominated attitudes that existed in the 1800’s, which explains the bias towards men, giving rise to feminist arguments against his statement as a result.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I literally quoted a Wikipedia article that covers a 1856 legal case concerning reasonableness in the law of negligence, that first case and the one that set a precedence for what reasonableness is for the next 150+ years. One that's taught in A level legal studies to this day to teach students what a reasonable person is.

bits of law | Tort | Negligence | Breach of Duty: Standard of Care

Study note on standard of care and breach of duty in negligence. Free study and revision resources for law students (LLB Degree/GDL) on tort law and the English Legal System.

www.bitsoflaw.org

The Reasonable Man: Subjective or Objective?

The Student Lawyer discusses the case law surrounding the 'Reasonable Man' test. Is this a test that is subjective or objective?

thestudentlawyer.com

Things have changed, the whole thing is in flux. You need to define a man, then a woman. in these gender fluid times all I can say is good luck...

Seriously though, as I and now Angilion have said, despite the law saying a "Reasonable Man" is objective, it's quite plainly anything but, in fact a less concrete arbiter is hard to imagine.

 

[Murphy]

So like i said then, turns out ignorance isn't just an excuse for some people, it's a way of life.

You can whine about how you personally think a reasonable person is not objective all you like but good luck arguing that if you ever find yourself in the courts. They won't give two hoots about what you personally think a reasonable person is, they won't give two hoots because your personal opinion on the matter is the very definition of something that's subjective.