So why even post, let alone quote an entire lengthy post to say that? You could just go and read some other thread.
sexual harassment (related to the recent C4 undercover program)
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
So why even post, let alone quote an entire lengthy post to say that? You could just go and read some other thread.
Soldato
I have to admit the “believe women” slogan is very dangerous.
Honest to god I don’t really pay much attention to it but during a recent Jury Service where you are trying to be responsible and do what is right, multiple times that “believe women” was playing in my head. To the point where I convinced myself the guy was guilty on the basis of believe women and why would she lie, over weighing certain evidence over others.
It took me 3-4 night after the verdict to realise what an idiot I had been the guy was clearly not guilty on the weight of the evidence.
Luckily the jury was 70% leaning not guilty so we went with not guilty.
Honest to god I don’t really pay much attention to it but during a recent Jury Service where you are trying to be responsible and do what is right, multiple times that “believe women” was playing in my head. To the point where I convinced myself the guy was guilty on the basis of believe women and why would she lie, over weighing certain evidence over others.
It took me 3-4 night after the verdict to realise what an idiot I had been the guy was clearly not guilty on the weight of the evidence.
Luckily the jury was 70% leaning not guilty so we went with not guilty.
Last edited:
Commissario
You're meant to go by the evidence, of which on part of which will be the Woman's (or in some cases, man's) evidence as the accuser, and you are meant to weigh against the other evidence.
The "believe" message is meant to basically be a simple way of saying treat every accusation as real until the investigation is done, and don't discount it out of hand.
The "believe" message is meant to basically be a simple way of saying treat every accusation as real until the investigation is done, and don't discount it out of hand.
That may be what it means in theory but it is far from what it means in practise.
Let us be honest here, In practise it means guilty
Last edited:
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 […]
That page does a pretty poor job of explaining what police intelligence is, I'd suggest doing some further research because a lot of your assumptions (such as it not being shared) are incorrect.
care to share what you know on the topic?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,680
I've intervened a few times. I once had to tell two guys to **** off repeatedly before they got the message and walked the (crying and terrified) woman to a taxi rank, where she asked me to wait with her as she thought they might come back. That was a bit of an eye opener.
I like to think someone would do the same for my daughters if they needed it.
I like to think someone would do the same for my daughters if they needed it.
Soldato
I was hoping you would say why you think its interesting, those types of creepy men exist, and she is trying to lure them, it works.
Your post or thread implies something needs to be done, It is interesting and concerning why people are taking simple things and trying to build ideology around it.
But you dismiss that like its nothing, instead its more concerning.
Commissario
It's interesting you bring up Brett, given the FBI apparently under instructions did not do even the most basic follow ups to most of the tips they got about him from people who knew and were active in the same circles at the time of the accusation and could potentially have said "yeah he really didn't drink and was a great guy", if you're trying to make an argument about how believing alleged victims can make life hard for someone, it's possibly best not to use an example where the investigators actively refused to follow up on potential information in relation to the accusation and the persons activities at that time.
The FBI was accused of not properly investigating. An accusation that you believe. Kind of ironic given the topic at hand.
So my question is why do you believe that they didn’t investigate it properly?
Man of Honour
That depends on context. A friend, yes. A therapist, yes. The legal system, no. The law shouldn't be based on belief. It should be based on evidence. Otherwise it's just summary convictions based on sex, "race", accent, social class, religion, skull shape random hunches from someone ("he looks like a wrong 'un"), whatever. There are far too many examples of that sort of thing throughout history. And yes, that includes skull shape. It was called phrenology.
That's a complete reversal of the truth. It's you who's swapped those two around and it's you who's changed the meaning of the word "believe" to mean something completely different. The word used is "believe". You've swapped that with "take seriously" despite the fact that phrase isn't what's there. You've then redefined "believe" to mean "take seriously", which is indeed "something entirely else" to what it means.
If someone told you they believed in <insert god here>, would you interpret that as them meaning that they took the idea that <insert god here> exists seriously? Not that they actually believed that <insert god here> exists (despite them saying exactly that), just that they take the idea seriously (despite the fact that's not what they said at all).
Man of Honour
If you want a real world example of the difference between "believe" and "take seriously", try looking into the lynchings of "black" men by the KKK et alia in the USA not so very long ago. That's what happens when the establishment of guilt is based on belief. The killers believed that the people they killed were guilty. Someone accused them of something. More specifically, someone deemed to be an inferior group identity was accused by someone deemed a superior group identity. Irrational prejudice is always involved. Nobody advocates belief the other way around.
That's very far from the only example, but it's probably the most infamous.
You may consider the difference to be trivial, but not everyone does.
Man of Honour
I watched the documentary last night, it was both unsurprising and eye opening at the same time the way it's pretty well highlighted that this sort of thing is an organised thing between groups of men. and the fact that they all asked her if she liked taxis leads one to assume that some cabbies are in on it too. Just one minor point though, when she was creating her dating profile pictures, she used a bunch of beachwear photos. naturally that is only ever going to immediately attract the creeps, which was then evidenced immediately by the tens of matches that happened and the dong pics that got sent... Although I guess the reason for those pics was to attract those very people so there was some material to start the docu with.
The focus group at the end where one guy says it's a matter of education from an early age is vital here, because once at adult level, those who are easily swayed by these sorts of behaviour are beyond recall.
I also think it's a bit brash people mentioning crossing the pavement to the other side if they see a woman walking on the same path alone, why? Your body language isn't giving off dodgy vibes, just be normal and walk past, Job done.
Someone said to put a lockdown on nightlife culture and drinking, why? People should be allowed to be out to have a fun time if they like. none of that is my kind of scene but freedom of movement shouldn't be hampered.
The journalist was right though to ask why the countless police on patrol in both cities those nights, not one of them approached her to ask if all was ok, they just lingered around talking amongst themselves, even as she walked right past them with the creeper guy following... Seems the beat staff don't really have the eye to spot dodgy activities, or don't care to in general.
Also, in France they seem a bit rapey live on air.
On a lighter note, a funny story from my mrs, she likes to go for walks around town often as it's a nice way to relax with fresh air etc. one night we are talking on the phone and she's about to walk under a railway bridge when she says "there's a dodgy looking man walking towards me before the bridge stay on the line...." and then I hear "dad?!"
I will tell this story to the grandkids in decades to come lmao.
But yes, it's a rough world out there. if someone followed me home like in the docu, then the first thing I'd be doing is clenching my keys and fisting the tips into their eyeballs as fast as possible. People like that are never going to reform or regret their actions and have no place in society.
The focus group at the end where one guy says it's a matter of education from an early age is vital here, because once at adult level, those who are easily swayed by these sorts of behaviour are beyond recall.
I also think it's a bit brash people mentioning crossing the pavement to the other side if they see a woman walking on the same path alone, why? Your body language isn't giving off dodgy vibes, just be normal and walk past, Job done.
Someone said to put a lockdown on nightlife culture and drinking, why? People should be allowed to be out to have a fun time if they like. none of that is my kind of scene but freedom of movement shouldn't be hampered.
The journalist was right though to ask why the countless police on patrol in both cities those nights, not one of them approached her to ask if all was ok, they just lingered around talking amongst themselves, even as she walked right past them with the creeper guy following... Seems the beat staff don't really have the eye to spot dodgy activities, or don't care to in general.
Also, in France they seem a bit rapey live on air.
On a lighter note, a funny story from my mrs, she likes to go for walks around town often as it's a nice way to relax with fresh air etc. one night we are talking on the phone and she's about to walk under a railway bridge when she says "there's a dodgy looking man walking towards me before the bridge stay on the line...." and then I hear "dad?!"
I will tell this story to the grandkids in decades to come lmao.
But yes, it's a rough world out there. if someone followed me home like in the docu, then the first thing I'd be doing is clenching my keys and fisting the tips into their eyeballs as fast as possible. People like that are never going to reform or regret their actions and have no place in society.
Last edited:
Where have I dismissed it like it's nothing? I'm sorry I can't explain any further as to why it is interesting, that's just a subjective view on my part; I happen to find it interesting you may not.
Because the thing being alleged is serious? You seem to be posting on this more than anyone yet the point is surely pretty simple and some obvious examples of why it is flawed have already been given.
If you actually mean "take seriously" then you could just clarify that that is what you mean instead of repeatedly questioning why blind belief is a bad idea.
I wonder how many women listens to a man when they say no. None.
Then you should say that. But even what you ask is in itself is very dangerous: it is tantamount to presumption of guilt.
Caporegime
The problem is that's not accurate on a psychological level. Clothing and makeup choices are very much a display of desires.
A nice easy one is the football shirt. There are far cheaper items of clothing that do the same physical job - cover you up, keep you warmish. But people pay silly money because they desire to show support for a team, to belong to that tribe.
This goes for clothing that also has no other real purpose than to show off the body of the wearer in an effort to either display or enhance attractiveness. Now I agree, this doesn't mean that person wants to shag everything going but it is a display of sexuality and some people are definitely going to react to that, whether male or female.
The difficulty really is the metaphorical line that is crossed with these reactions. Some things are absolutely and obviously way beyond the pale. Others however are borderline or even enjoyed by some. What some people find acceptable or even enjoy may be seen as being massively offensive by someone else. This can often be the problem.
My point in this is that people control their own destiny to a large extent, take actions that are going to prompt certain reactions and then complain about said reactions when they had the opportunity to prevent them, or theyve even acted in a way to bring about those reactions.
It's like other flawed messaging such as "defund the police" and "black lives matter", it's almost deliberately ambiguous so it ends up going viral.
To some people "black lives matter" means "black lives matter too" as it they believe there is a problem with police shootings in that black people are treated as less than others.
To other people, it's a bit more literal and people who aren't black need to "sit down and listen" and the general movement to deal with egregious police shootings is all about them.
Likewise "defund the police" can mean reform to some people and literally stripping police budgets to other people.
In the case of "believe all women" to some it might mean "take seriously", "don't dismiss out of hand" etc.. but to others, it generates some implicit bias, that women especially must be taken seriously and they should place additional weight on their claims (I mean we've had a claimed example of this in this very thread from someone who served on a jury).
In a discussion people shouldn't need to rely on slogans when they can simply clarify, the guy originally saying "believe victims" was also dishing out all sorts of platitudes re:" group identity and how men, in general, need to do things etc. so it's not necessarily clear whether he meant something else or whether he literally does mean to emphasise putting more belief on the claims of apparent victims.
The issue with the statement when someone actually means it ought to be pretty obvious by now though so I'm not sure why there is still apparent confusion over it.
Last edited: