sexual harassment (related to the recent C4 undercover program)

[FishFluff]

Or do you want an electronic system that follows an individual that can be queried by law enforcement and other enities that may be interested?

This is literally what already happens. Police intelligence even shows up on enhanced security checks. I'm not suggesting anything new here.

And yes, obviously it could be abused because it's ******* obvious how. No one is suggesting that you prosecute someone solely off the back of multiple reports because that's clearly insane.

 

[bazzabear]

Apologies if I have just prevented 400 pages of alt-right mouth frothing.

Oh sweet summer child. It's like you've never been on this forum before.

There's no way you're going to prevent it.

 

[200sols]

I'd want something recording against someone

You want people to go on some sort of 'potential sexual offender register'? Doesnt sound like a very good idea to me.

 

[dlockers]

There's a huge difference between the statements "believe victims" and "take any accusation seriously", can you not see that?

OK but a victim is defined as someone who has been victimised (harmed, injured, usually as the result of crime).

So are we saying victim doesn't mean victim to use it in the sentence "don't believe victims"?

 

[Mrwong]

When a man makes a compliant about a woman for sexual harassment, it is really not taken seriously by the police. Specially, if you have an athletic build body.

 

[C Kent]

You guys literally have single digit IQ don't you?

With a lack of evidence, what is someone the victim of?
It's just a circular argument with you. Make stupid statements (in this instance 'believe victims'), get called out, double down on the stupid statement. Rinse and repeat.

 

[dowie]

Believe? Yes. Prosecute, no. As a minimum I'd want something recording against someone, that way if multiple people complain about a person over a period of time, even if there's no evidence, then the likelihood of them being someone worth keeping an eye on increases.

What's your take? That as long as someone commits a crime they're innocent unless they've left evidence?

Automatic belief is silly; for an obvious counterpoint consider two opposing claims (let's say a lesbian couple in dispute to fit the "believe all women" thing) where each party considers themselves to be a victim and has a different narrative about how the other is an offender of some form.

Accusations should be taken seriously and investigated, broad statements about "believing" victims are nonsensical. In some cases, it is just people who actually mean "take seriously", "don't dismiss out of hand" etc.. but in other cases, people literally have as a default view things like "believe all women" and adhere to that as their personal philosophy... or at least until it becomes too awkward.

For example, there was a bit of a split in the "believe all women" camp when someone accused Biden of sexual assault in the run-up to the Presidential election, some quietly dropped their position there, some others came out with a sort of greater good argument in that they did believe the apparent "victim" (whether they actually did is another matter but they paid lip service to it for consistency at least) but that the election is more important and lastly other, perhaps more die-hard believers, were simply left a little disillusioned.

 

[dowie]

OK but a victim is defined as someone who has been victimised (harmed, injured, usually as the result of crime).

So are we saying victim doesn't mean victim to use it in the sentence "don't believe victims"?

No, the victim is as you say but so are the non-victims and the obvious issue here is both victims and non-victims will make accusations. Unless you have some mind-reading skills then you're not in a position to believe victims in general without also believing non-victims in general... essentially believing all accusers.

So the correct stance is to take seriously accusations and investigate them, we have a general principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, if an accusation can be proven then hopefully justice can be served in a court of law, if it can't then the accused is found not guilty... even if they did it, even if the accuser is in fact a real victim.

 

[Mrwong]

No, the victim is as you say but so are the non-victims and the obvious issue here is both victims and non-victims will make accusations. Unless you have some mind-reading skills then you're not in a position to believe victims in general without also believing non-victims in general... essentially believing all accusers.

So the correct stance is to take seriously accusations and investigate them, we have a general principle that people are innocent until proven guilty, if an accusation can be proven then hopefully justice can be served in a court of law, if it can't then the accused is found not guilty... even if they did it, even if the accuser is in fact a real victim.

Police do not take it seriously if a man is a victim by a woman. The scales of justice are tip in favour of women in this scenario.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

This is literally what already happens. Police intelligence even shows up on enhanced security checks. I'm not suggesting anything new here.

Yes it literally already happens, generally when someone has been prosecuted of a crime or has been warned regarding a crime they have committed. It's colloquially referred to as a criminal record. We got there in the end.

And yes, obviously it could be abused because it's ******* obvious how. No one is suggesting that you prosecute someone solely off the back of multiple reports because that's clearly insane.

You are right you didn't suggest they should be prosecuted, you suggested that they be monitored like a criminal. The purpose of which you kept vague.

 

[FishFluff]

Yes it literally already happens, generally when someone has been prosecuted of a crime or has been warned regarding a crime they have committed. It's colloquially referred to as a criminal record. We got there in the end.

Police intelligence is not the same thing as a criminal record. Until you realise they’re not the same thing then I’m done wasting my time replying to you.

 

[bloodiedathame]

It's horrible to think that women are preyed on like this but I do wonder if it would have been the same outcome if she'd used the words 'No' and 'Leave me alone'.

 

[throwaway4372]

It's horrible to think that women are preyed on like this but I do wonder if it would have been the same outcome if she'd used the words 'No' and 'Leave me alone'.

should be opt-in tho, not opt-out

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Police intelligence is not the same thing as a criminal record. Until you realise they’re not the same thing then I’m done wasting my time replying to you.

My bad, I didn't notice police intelligence was a system. lets looks this up.

Disclosure of police intelligence on enhanced checks (approved information) - Unlock

Aim of this information Each Police Force maintains a local record of information, which can be used to disclose information […]

unlock.org.uk

So it is information held by local police forces, so it's not shared amongst them unless specifically requested. Intresting.

What information does it include

Findings of innocence
Acquittals

So you are not guilty of a crime but we will record it against your name any way. Sounds Great.

Cautions and convictions of those that you live with

Guilt by association. Sounds even better.

Other Police intelligence (including allegations)

Oh this is what you were talking about.

So it's like a criminal record but without the stringent requirement/oversight. And you want more of this?

I was joking when I said this but I'm not so sure if it is still a joke or a slowly approaching reality.

What do you think about tracking other patterns of behaviour on this record? Maybe assign a score while we are at it?

Interesting article. Accusations aren't just for christmas, they are for life. And to think some people want more of this.

Disclosure of police intelligence on enhanced DBS checks - Unlock

Although Unlock as a charity primarily focuses on people with convictions and cautions, a recent case about a rape acquittal […]

unlock.org.uk

 

[Greboth]

This really, it honestly must be horrible for women who find themselves at the butt of this kind of behaviour, only for men (who can never really know what it's like) to then blame them (the woman) for X, Y Z reason (usually clothing / makeup choice).

This is where it gets tricky in my opinion as while it is never the victims fault where do you draw the line between victim blaming and personal responsibility?

For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think it's ever the victims fault and the blame always lies at the feet of the perpetrator. However there is an element of risk to everything we do and generally people will try to mitigate them as best as they can. However if you take steps to increase the risk something could go wrong, , i.e. getting paralytic to the point you can't say no or defend yourself, there does have to be an element of responsibility there even if you're not to blame when something does happen.

Or to use a less emotionally charged example, you get mugged after walking down a street at night in a dodgy neighbourhood while flashing a was of cash. Are you responsible for putting yourself at an increase risk of being mugged? Yes. But are you actually to blame for being mugged? No. The mugger is the one to blame.

I accept though it's a fine line and one that is hard to discuss without quickly descending in to victim blaming.

 

[Hades]

My bad, I didn't notice police intelligence was a system. lets looks this up.

Disclosure of police intelligence on enhanced checks (approved information) - Unlock

Aim of this information Each Police Force maintains a local record of information, which can be used to disclose information […]

unlock.org.uk

So it is information held by local police forces, so it's not shared amongst them unless specifically requested. Intresting.

What information does it include


So you are not guilty of a crime but we will record it against your name any way. Sounds Great.


Guilt by association. Sounds even better.


Oh this is what you were talking about.

So it's like a criminal record but without the stringent requirement/oversight. And you want more of this?

I was joking when I said this but I'm not so sure if it is still a joke or a slowly approaching reality.



Interesting article. Accusations aren't just for christmas, they are for life. And to think some people want more of this.

Disclosure of police intelligence on enhanced DBS checks - Unlock

Although Unlock as a charity primarily focuses on people with convictions and cautions, a recent case about a rape acquittal […]

unlock.org.uk

I've been aware for some time that some accusations are recorded by police and disclosed to potential employers when they do an enhanced DBS check. It's scary to think that a simply unfounded false accusation can go on to prevent you getting a job in the future. This is why I am very much against recording such information unless a court has found you guilty. I had a DBS check recently when I applied for a job (obviously nothing on my record so it wasn't a concern).

It's also why "believe" should never be misunderstood to be the same as "take seriously". Yes we must take seriously any accusation and investigate it with all diligence. But to believe one side before evidence is available means to prefer their version of events over another person's version of events and risks possible harm to the innocent party.

I have both a son and daughter. If my daughter told me something happened to her then of course, as her father, I would believe her and of course I would want the police to also believe her. But looking at it objectively, if my son were accused of anything I would want the police to take the accusers allegations very seriously and investigate them fully, but not believe one side over the other until there was evidence of any wrong doing.

 

[platinum87]

This could be interesting to discuss given the forum membership is mostly male, posted in here to discuss the subject more whereas I get the impression the TV forum is more "entertainment" oriented and this certainly isn't entertainment to say the least, it's pretty serious and really the purpose of this thread is to discuss the issues highlighted in the program.



The first part of the program dealt with online stuff and I'm a bit critical of that; basically, this journalist used some younger pictures of herself inc some tanned bikini pic, set her age to 18 and went on an unnamed dating app. Her creepy matches are apparently middle age men but in order to match with them she's surely had to set her age range that high else they'd not see each other?
Also, we don't see their profiles, if a middle-aged man has stated they're looking for hookups then gets a match from an apparent 18-year-old in a bikini surely they're going to assume it's some sort of hookup/sugar daddy situation and messages might well be a bit sleazy. Of course, none of that excuses the unsolicited pics of genitalia she received or indeed a disturbing video.

In the next bit she visits a school and talks to girls about harassment, they share some stories with her (inc a worrying one about a bus driver), but they're also part of some campaign to ban adult "sexy schoolgirl" outifts/costumes, which I'm not sure are necessarily linked to harrasment.

In the last bit we get the interesting stuff, the hidden camera journalism, she goes out on two nights in two different cities (Liverpool and London) and on both occasions is pestered by utter creeps. The Liverpool bit is the creepiest, the guy actually goes with her all the way to her hotel room; he also leaves when told to and I suspect would have left earlier too if she'd been direct about it but the worrying thing is that a real drunk girl might not be in a state to be direct like that and that situation could have been very bad. London was a bit of a let down as she was targeted by two guys who were together but despite having film crew, security and police around she's like the polar opposite of Ross Kemp on gangs; she got scared ditched them then went inside for some moral support from the production team, then there was another creep but he stopped trying when she went inside her hotel.

She commented that no one offered to help her while she was wandering around drunk, but she just looked like one of many girls who'd wander around drunk in city centres and don't really need any help. She also commented about how this happened while there were lots of police around though I suspect in the case of London (though it does seem predatory/creepy) those guys probably still just saw themselves as trying to pick up a girl, plenty of drunk men and women will start chatting outsdie bars/clubs and end up hooking up, the guy in Liverpool seemed to be foreign and rather clueless.

I'd be curious as to what others thought of it if you did see it or indeed about the issue in general? How to better prevent creeps trying to take advantage of drunk girls etc..could be a bit more complicated than it initially seems.

What is interesting to me is why you think it is interesting.

I mean this is why you take a taxi, dont walk home drunk etc etc etc.

There is nothing new here basically.

 

[Werewolf]

There's a huge difference between the statements "believe victims" and "take any accusation seriously", can you not see that?

Or they are effectively meant to mean the same thing...

As opposed to hundreds of years of "she's lying" as the default, you believe the victim whilst you investigate properly, rather than the old default of basically brushing off any accusations as happened so many times in so many high profile cases.

Yes there are some cases where the accuser is lying, but that is almost certainly dwarfed by the number of people that were put off making a complaint because they knew or feared they wouldn't be believed (given up until ~30 years ago that was pretty much the default and even now it's a fairly common and in a lot of industries it takes a lot of courage to be the first to put in that complaint of say sexual harassment/assault, hence why after the first report you often see more).

 

[robgmun]

How do you investigate things like a man making extremely creepy, sexual comments to a woman? Sometimes there just isn't recorded evidence that something has happened.

I was talking about rape and sexual assault, which does an ******* saying a few things to you have to do with anything. Unless they're a work colleague that you can report to HR to, then it's not a crime

 

[robgmun]

There's a huge difference between the statements "believe victims" and "take any accusation seriously", can you not see that?

It's the liberal insanity that has turned these people's brains into liquid. I just can't fathom the utter stupidity I'm reading from FishFluff and dlockers.