Before & After
Well, he does look better with the hood up...
Two Brits were today jailed in the UK for abusing and threatening a feminist campaigner and an MP on Twitter. John Nimmo, 25, of South Shields, Tyne and Wear, and Isabella Sorley, 23, of Akenside Hill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, will spend eight and 12 weeks behind bars, respectively. They had earlier pleaded guilty to sending vile …
They'd have got less/no time for harassing her in person.
Perhaps, but I doubt these two would have the nerve to actually harass someone in person. Particularly Nimmo, who according to accounts I've read elsewhere is a very sad individual who rarely leaves his house. It's the fact that they felt invulnerable making their threats over the Internet that explains why they've been made an example of, and I for one applaud the decision to do that. I've been the victim of Internet abuse in the past, which eventually spilled over into real life.
Well that's the point. Had they harassed in person, the victim would be better able to determine these individuals for what they are; pathetic, distant sad-sacks, who don't really know you and are very unlikely to do you any harm.
But while they are anonymous and online you can't tell that. They could be crazed psychos that live just down the street, that work in your local shop, that walk past you every day on your way to work. You don't know where the threat is coming from and how credible it may be. That's very worrying.
I heard about a Swedish study that found men get more abuse online than women (no link, sorry but it's not hard to imagine). Men don't react to it as much though.
These people were targeted because of what they did and because they reacted to the trolls, not because they are women. What they did was not for equality, it was to remove the BOE's choice from a banknote on the grounds that person was white and male. They are opposed to equality of opportunity, so are opposed to equality.
Women express opinions all the time - it's not daring, just normal.
So wrong in so many ways.
Need the reference to the study I'm afraid because it's smelling a little like BS, and you are just hoping such a study exists. You did see this right (http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/14/man-sets-up-fake-online-dating-profile-pretending-to-be-a-woman-but-quits-two-hours-later-due-to-harassment-and-hostility-4262185/) and this was on a site where you'd think men would be trying to impress not offend, and even a man found it too much. Please do send references where women have abused men to the same degree.
The female victims were targeted by the criminals and other vile people just because they dared to open their mouth. Remember they were sent really vile threats and abuse whether they responded to trolls or not. The issue is why people feel the need to send abuse and threats, not that recipients should suck it up and shut up. The abusers want to silence the recipients, do you approve of censoring people for their politely expressed opinions then?
And as for the BoE, they have a policy to ensure there was gender balance represented on the bank notes and they did not appear to be following it. Since half the population is female and don't spend it indoors making the evening tea, they should also be represented on our notes, don't you agree? That isn't opposing opportunity, that's just pointing out to the BoE that they need to follow their own policy.
The people on the bank notes are those who have made a significant contribution to the country/society. Check the obituary column in any paper for the last few months and see the proportion of men and women they report, then consider how the gender balance of notable people was 50 years ago when the youngest person to appear on a banknote died. Or you could look at the BBC's "100 greatest Britons" survey where the public chose only 13 women and 87 men. Equal representation does allow there to be no women represented at a particular time, if you treat each candidate equally and don't privilege women over men. If we have to have the same number of each sex then men will have to be discriminated against - we could ignore the last 37 men in the survey and search through the "next 250 greatest Britons" to find a 50-50 balance to satisfy the sexists among us.
I think that study was in Swedish, so I can't find it. It was from a source I trust but if you don't want to believe me that's fine. Here's a stat from the guardian for you instead (though the Swedish survey was on newspaper articles, not social media). The main difference between abuse of men and abuse of women is that people care about it when it happens to women. The guardian mentions the abuse of men at GQ which was ignored by the media because the victims were just men.
"a survey by the website Knowthenet in 2011 found that 19-year-old males were most at risk from cyberbullying among teenagers, with 85% saying they had been victims, while figures from the World Health Organisation reveal that men account for 81% of violent deaths globally every year."
NB. one of the commenters on that article explains that it was cumulative bullying up to age 19, not that boys face a greater risk at 19 than at any other age.
81% of violent deaths are of men, but the other 19% get a load of government funding for "end violence against women" campaigns including a special ribbon and an international day. Men share an international day with World Toilet Day. Have you seen any non-gendered "end violence" campaigns, or campaigns to end violence against men?
The guy posing as a woman on the dating site did so to see if it's easier for women to get dates, which it clearly is. What he claimed to be sexism was nothing of the sort, it was men responding to a "woman" advertising herself as available for a relationship, in a forum where people are anonymous, physically distant and can be blocked. The critics of those men focused on the idea that they should behave online the same way they would to a stranger on the street. But the two are not comparable - people on the street have not advertised their intentions and are in the same physical location. People behave differently in different environments.
"Please do send references where women have abused men to the same degree." It's about abuse, not inter-sex abuse (it didn't matter less that one of the twitter abusers was a woman posing as a man!), but if you want an example then the feminist "...against women" campaigns more than balance it out, by making it seem as if abuse of men doesn't happen or is not worth stopping.
"The abusers want to silence the recipients, do you approve of censoring people for their politely expressed opinions then?" You've got the timeline wrong. The racist, sexist campaign had already finished, and the tweets were in response to the feminists effectively censoring the BoE. If they were targeted for expressing an opinion it would have happened months earlier!
"The people on the bank notes are those who have made a significant contribution to the country/society. Check the obituary column in any paper for the last few months and see the proportion of men and women they report, then consider how the gender balance of notable people was 50 years ago when the youngest person to appear on a banknote died. Or you could look at the BBC's "100 greatest Britons" survey where the public chose only 13 women and 87 men."
Do you know WHY there's such a disparity? It's not because there were so many less great women. It's because the people who write the history books have consistently undervalued, misattributed or in the worst cases, constructively obscured the contributions of women. Take for example Rosalind Franklin whose work provided the evidence for the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick's contributions, while not insignificant, could not have been achieved without her, and yet they are credited with "discovering" it. There are plenty more of these out there and if you give a damn about self improvement you'll find out about them and stop peddling this crap.
"The main difference between abuse of men and abuse of women is that people care about it when it happens to women."
Utter, utter bull. Let's just use some figures here shall we? In 2011/12, 1.2m women reported experiencing domestic abuse compared to 0.8m men. (Office of National Statistics)
The intensity and severity of violence is more extreme when the perpetrator is male. (Hester, M., 2010)
ONE THIRD of female homicides are linked to domestic violence. (Department of Health, 2005; Home Office, 1999; Coleman and Osborne, 2010)
People care about it because it's more likely to happen to women (the degree of difference is debatable but all the major studies agree on this), men are more likely to do cause serious physical and mental harm, and women are FAR more likely to die as a result.
I totally would have agreed with you if you'd said "domestic abuse against men isn't taken seriously enough", but the implication that it's a bigger problem than abuse against women is frankly absurd.
> Take for example Rosalind Franklin whose work provided the evidence for the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick's contributions, while not insignificant, could not have been achieved without her, and yet they are credited with "discovering" it.
There is very little in science that is discovered without building on the work of others. Watson and Cricks discovery could not have been made without the work of many others (both male and female) but they were the ones who published "Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid" which is why they received the Nobel Prize and are credited with discovering it. Had Franklin, or anybody else, published first then they would have been credited with it.
"Do you know WHY there's such a disparity? It's not because there were so many less great women. It's because the people who write the history books have consistently undervalued, misattributed or in the worst cases, constructively obscured the contributions of women. Take for example Rosalind Franklin whose work provided the evidence for the structure of DNA. Watson and Crick's contributions, while not insignificant, could not have been achieved without her, and yet they are credited with "discovering" it. There are plenty more of these out there and if you give a damn about self improvement you'll find out about them and stop peddling this crap."
That is quite frankly bullshit. The reason there was such a disparity is that women were (almost always) not given opportunities to do great things. Hence, there are very few important women in history, and most of those that existed did so because of birth (royalty). You cling to your view, even though it fails a critical examination, because if your view is true then it's the fault of modern historians, and not the fault of people long dead whom we cannot point finger at. The postmodern rewriting of actual history is a fun intellectual exercise, but doesn't mean anything in reality.
Your example of Franklin is one, who did important foundational work, and as someone else on here said the results leading up to the breakthrough are often forgotten (see Einstein's special relatively, or should that be Einstein--Lorentz special relativity?), but you'd need to find thousands of others to back up your thesis.
Well, actually you could say there were less great prominent women, not because women can be less great or less prominent but because if women are to believed then they were held back in the past and so could not have achieved as greatly as men did. How can we look back and assume there will be a 505/50 split between great women and great men, when men held women back so much then? Presumably to get a 50/50 split we would have to bring some women into it that we only think could have been great, had men not stood in their way.
In the future i fully assume there will be a more sensible split between men and women appearing on bank notes, but because these people are usually historic figures, not enough time has passed for there to have been equality in the time periods we are looking at commemorating or celebrating on the notes.
"I totally would have agreed with you if you'd said "domestic abuse against men isn't taken seriously enough", but the implication that it's a bigger problem than abuse against women is frankly absurd."
I didn't mention domestic violence at all, so the implication it's a bigger problem for men was not absurd - it wasn't even there!
The implication that violence against men is not taken seriously enough was there in spades if you cared. For example, the GQ trolling getting very little press; the 81% male violent deaths getting no official action from the UN when female anti-violence campaigns get a load of funding; males being the largest group of online bulling victims when people think it's something associated with women. You think I should have said something about men not being taken seriously enough but when I did you thought I was minimizing violence against women. Can you not see past your biological desire to look out for the womenfolk?
"ONE THIRD of female homicides are linked to domestic violence."
Men die in other ways (19 times as many do so at work but that's not a national obsession), it doesn't mean they're not subject to violence form their partners. Have you seen the difference in suicide rates for men and women, and how the difference has increased greatly over the last few decades? Male victims of DV are ignored and not catered for, so suicide is a way out whereas a woman might be able to go to a shelter - there could be a lot of DV victims within that suicide figure. Also, women are more likely to harm their children than men are. Treating women as more exceptional victims and ignoring male victims and female violence is harmful. End violence against PEOPLE.
"Do you know WHY there's such a disparity?"
It's because women can get along by wearing pretty dresses, growing their nails and letting men take care of them. They've been allowed to take a back seat for most of history and took advantage of that. Men have no option not to work and are more driven and obsessed, so are more likely to be the ones inventing steam engines or discovering laws of physics. We're also more likely to be UFO spotters, bigfoot hunters and crop circle investigators so it's not all good. Those guys won't get on a banknote they shows the dedication men can have for the weird and wonderful, out of the mainstream, things that push society forward. There was nothing to prevent a woman inventing Bitcoin, but do you think Satoshi was a woman?
>The people on the bank notes are those who have made a significant contribution to the country/society.
Darwin and Watt sure, but John Houblon?
I'd put Jane Austen or Millicent Fawcett (women's right to vote movement) way above Houblon in the "contribution to society" category.
But we are getting a Winston Churchill one. He was Hitler's greatest general until the USA stepped in and put a stop to it.
Then he gave Eastern Europe to Stalin instead of insisting the Russians removed him before negotiating with them.
Then he rewrote history giving himself the smiley face and finally pulling the chain on the Generals he shit.
Then he gets to be the famous war hero lauded in every civilised country and America.
Then he gets to be on a bank note.
Then uh... where was I?
Oh Tony Blair... yes... errr.
Great war leader yes. No crimes against humanity trial has ever proved different.
Deserved every bit of troll abuse he got.
What's his address?
it's the same when it comes to a hot chick walking through the largely-deserted town centre late at night in, say, a leather mini-skirt and crop top. Alone. Suggest it might not be a good idea and most women and increasing no.s of men react as though you're excusing rape.
It is like banging your head against a wall trying to talk to people too hyper to be prepared to consider the concept of 'self-defence'. It is like trying to have a dialogue with a character out of Viz.
The main argument seems to be that 'you shouldn't _have to_ defend yourself'.
Let me explain the issue here, since you obviously are obviously having trouble.
When was the last time you saw a poster saying "don't rape" or "don't mug"? And yet we see posters all the time telling women not to get drunk, not to get into unlicensed taxis, to walk home with a friend. No, you shouldn't have to defend yourself but since you do then at least spend as much time telling people not to commit crimes as you spend telling potential victims to stay in, or stay sober, or to stay worried.
Oh, and the statistics tell us that most rapes are not carried out by the stranger hiding in the shadows, they are carried out by people the women know. So, you can leave the hit chick alone and stop stalking her in the town centre.
Yes, it would be great if everyone were civilised, and there was no one who would take advantage of anyone else when they were too drunk to do anything about it. But life isn't like that, and putting up a few posters saying "don't rape" won't change that one jot. It will just make everyone in general feel more nervous.
The poster above who mentioned a scantily clad girl walking alone at night has a point though. As soon as you mention that it might not be the wisest action to wander about alone, so drunk you can hardly stand, you get accused of condoning rape, to close down the discussion (a bit like you used to get called rascist if you talked about immigration).
The girl in question certainly has a right to remain unmolested as she walks there, regardless of how she is dressed, or whether she is drunk, in the same way as a tourist has the right to wander about obviously dressed like a tourist, waving a wallet full of cash about and so drunk he is about to pass out. The wallet full of cash, and him not being in control of himself, will attract the attention of criminals (in the same way as the girl's clothing and demeanour may likewise attract the attention of undesirables) who will steal it and possibly kill him to do so. He may have a had a right to walk there and expect not to be robbed, and those who have broken the law may (or may not) be caught and locked up, but he is still dead at the end of it. If he was unaware of the danger, no one would think twice about warning him that his behaviour was drawing attention from bad guys, and many would think he was asking for trouble by behaving so, so why the distinction here? It is almost as if those that do the accusing of condoning rape, and trying to close down discussion, are waiting for the woman to be raped so they can then say "there you are, told you all men are rapists".
All men are not rapists, and the vast majority of us would never defend anyone who has raped, however, that does not mean women should abandon common sense.
Very well put, AC@14:30
But if you fancy a proper challenge, try posting that kind of response on The Guardian comments section and you will soon find that the world is full of delusional idealists who imagine that men just need to stop and think to make the world a cosy place. A bit like the 'Slut Walk' ladies who parade around London with their tits hanging out, dreaming that their behaviour will magically transform the behaviour of testosterone-fuelled sociopaths.
> But life isn't like that, and putting up a few posters saying "don't rape" won't change that one jot.
I'm not too sure about that, really. There was a big campaign across Sub-Saharan Africa about five/six years ago against mistreatment of women, with posters, mentions in soap-opera plots, pop songs, etc. It seems to have borne a significant improvement in terms of changing people's attitudes.
"No, you shouldn't have to defend yourself but since you do then at least spend as much time telling people not to commit crimes "
Should I learn self defense before or after I travel to the inner city to tell people not to commit crime? And when do you plan on travelling to the real world?
Bronny, when was the last time you saw anyone get upset over a poster telling people to shut their doors and windows, not to leave valuables on display in their cars, get a smoke detector and generally stay alert and be responsible...except when it was aimed specifically at women. Being able to do something about a situation is not the same as causing the situation: claims of "victim blaming" are all utter BS. Women need to stop acting like they're children.
Do you know any women? Really know them? Are you aware of exactly how much time young girls and women spend worrying about how to avoid trouble? It's second nature, it's been drummed in to us from an early age. Sit in the back of taxis, worry about who is walking behind you, hold your keys in your hand to hit someone with them/let you in the door faster, pull your top up so the dodgy looking man doesn't letch down your top, don't wear a short skirt because you'll get called a slut, it's never ending. Please don't tell women not to use common sense, we use it all the bloody time so it grates just a tad when we see bloody Police posters telling us not to go out and get drunk and we don't see equivalent posters for potential rapists, and then we see the conviction rates for rapes so pathetically low and we hear that a worrying number of people would blame the women for being drunk/wearing a short skirt if they were on a jury.
That's why women are pissed off with the quick quips on being safe - it's not because we don't know what to do, we're just a bit sick of being told to curtail our behaviour.
"we don't see equivalent posters for potential rapists"
To be fair, there are shit-loads of them in gent's nightclub toilets. You wouldn't see them, but they are there.
"the conviction rates for rapes so pathetically low"
It's also a much mis-reported crime, with plenty of false accusations. I can't imagine being accused of much worse. I'm in no way defending rape or complaining about prosecuting rapists, but part of the low conviction rates is due to the lots of cases getting dropped, which is a gross shame both that they came about in the first place and because it makes the CPS more cynical towards accusers.
This post has been deleted by its author
Actually the figures for false accusation is no higher than any other crime (somewhere about 4%), so the myth is about "plenty of false accusation".
"In the period of the review, there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence. During the same period there were 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, 6 for making false allegation of domestic violence and 3 for making false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.
Furthermore, the report shows that a significant number of these cases involved young, often vulnerable people. About half of the cases involved people aged 21 years old and under, and some involved people with mental health difficulties. In some cases, the person alleged to have made the false report had undoubtedly been the victim of some kind of offence, even if not the one which he or she had reported. "
Jeremy, do you have a source for the 4% figure? Sometimes 2% is claimed but that one is definitely myth (http://ncfm.org/libraryfiles/Children/rape/greer.pdf), whereas other studies have found 60% (http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htm)!
False accusations don't have to be made to the authorities. If a woman wants someone beaten up she can tell some male friends he raped her and they'll do the job for her without it going near the government's statistics. The tendency to trivialise false accusations or not to prosecute false accusers should not be taken as evidence that they don't happen. In one famous case Danmell Ndonye falsely accused 5 guys who could have gone to jail for a combined 125 years. She recanted only after video evidence was presented to her but she was not charged. For all the stress she caused, and police time she wasted, she got a year's counselling and 250 hours community service.
"That's why women are pissed off with the quick quips on being safe - it's not because we don't know what to do, we're just a bit sick of being told to curtail our behaviour."
Whenever you try and frame an argument about equality by first defining a group as being hard done by, it immediately marks those people out as a seperate group, different from the rest of society. It happens whenever you try to set out a group, be it women, gay people or people of any race or colour.
Instead of having women's rights or men's rights, gay rights or black policemen's associations, it should be about including everyone, not creating divisive sub groups. The existence of the group contributes to the problem of "them and us". It should just be "us".
Do you think young boys don't get told to be careful to avoid trouble? Of course they do. There are plenty of boys who are not testosterone fuelled aggressive roughnecks, and they too worry about being attacked for wearing the wrong thing, being the wrong colour, shape or size, and for being alone in a strange neighbourhood after dark. The same advice holds true for male and female, and no one group has a monopoly on it. Some things may affect some more than others, but everyone is affected. For example, a lone girl in a strange town is likely to walk past a gang of lads and get leered at, but a boy in the same situation might get beaten up.
So no, they are not quick quips about being safe, they are common sense advice which you acknowledge you are sick of and don't want to take. The same advice holds true for all people including women. You are not a seperate sub species, we are all people and deserve to be treated equally and have equal opportunity - and to all take the same reasonable precautions to stay safe.
"The main argument seems to be that 'you shouldn't _have to_ defend yourself"
An elderly medieval historian I know once remarked regarding the feminist slogan "take back the night" that it was a quixotic quest; that historically only during a few decades in the twentieth century had it ever been reasonably safe for unaccompanied women to walk about at night — and even then only in some cities.
One possible response to "but I shouldn't have to defend myself" is "sez who?" aka "where does it say that?" People using that excuse for foolish behavior are indulging in wishful thinking at the possible cost of their health and life.
"The main argument seems to be that 'you shouldn't _have to_ defend yourself'."
It's a perfectly valid statement.
Yes: It's less safe to walk down the road in knickers and a bra than it is a voluminous body-suit, but that's NOT the victim's fault. EVER. It's a problem with our society, how we view under-dressed women as 'up for it', some men's willingness to commit terrible crimes on other human beings not for money but out of sexual sadism, and insufficient policing to make every dark street safe.
We lock our doors at night as a fair precaution against burglary. It's a sad state of affairs when we believe that someone should dress conservatively as a fair protection against being violently raped.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Victim blaming, fantastic."
If a stranger was being abusive to me on Twitter, I'd click the "block" button. Much easier than calling the police, constantly going on national media thereby increasing the number of trolls I was attracting, and constantly monitoring Twitter from morning to night for more rape "threats".
But then, as a male, I tend to think about things in a logical manner, rather than throwing my hands up in the air and crying "I'm a victim, I'm a victim! Somebody help me!".
Why would anyone think being "drunk and out of her mind" would be a remitting factor? Particularly when, as noted by the judge, the defendant has a history of being in that state? If you are out of control when under the influence of drugs you chose* to abuse, you are out of control by your own choice.
* obviously things out of an individual's control such as unexpected reactions to medical drugs and the like ARE remitting factors, but unless they are drunk because someone tided them to a chair and forced a tube in them, they should be locked up as the danger to other people they are.
> Why would anyone think being "drunk and out of her mind" would be a remitting factor?
Don't know under English law, but in Continental civil law jurisdictions it usually is a mitigating factor (because the law says so, as your actions were not fully under your own rational control and therefore you cannot be held to be fully legally responsible for them).
Do not think that makes the perpetrators lives any easier though. It only means that instead of, or in addition to prison you may spend time in a mental institution receiving treatment or care. In the latter place your freedoms are much more curtailed than in prison so it is not really a fun place to be and a good lawyer will think twice before suggesting you make any such allegations.
In this case I don't see how they could consider this a mitigating factor (bar chronic alcoholism), as the perpetrator could have easily withdrawn her message and apologised after regaining sobriety.
"If you are out of control when under the influence of drugs you chose* to abuse, you are out of control by your own choice. ... unless they are drunk because someone tided them to a chair and forced a tube in them, they should be locked up as the danger to other people they are."
May I ask if you extend that responsibility of choice to a woman who walks across a deserted carpark at 3 AM after choosing to get drunk out of her skull, as much as to someone who engages in abusive behaviour after choosing to get drunk out of their skull?
Seriously? Are you fucking kidding me? As far as I know, walking across a car park is not a crime. It does not require condemnation. Rape, on the other hand, is a crime, and does. I hope to Christ you never ever have a daughter. Or a female partner. You realise that the exact same argument is made by the Taliban? "If women will persist in walking around showing their hair like the slags they are, without a male guardian present, then how can any self-respecting man be condemned for raping them?"
Get a fucking grip
English and Scottish law take a fairly pragmatic approach to intoxication as a defence. In general, a crime requires both the actus reus (guilty act) and the mens rea (guilty mind) in order for a prosecution to be successful. The elements of the guilty mind are usually indicated by words like "intention" in a statute. In theory at least,* no guilty mind (e.g. intention), no successful prosecution. Over the last couple of hundred years, the influence of alcohol (and, to a slighly lesser extent, other things) affecting the ability to form intention has gradually been changed - if you think about it, the accused could say "I was drunk and didn't know what I was doing!" and use it as a successful defence. The law now distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication, with the former not being a defence, but more likely regarded as a contributing factor. In Scotland, there may be a partial defence to some types of crime if the intoxication is as a result of an addiction (i.e. not voluntary), but this isn't widely accepted in England.
*I've ranted on about the increase of "strict liability" offences before on the El Reg forums, and the way that sexual offences are going that way in order to hit the perceptions of a minority of lobbyists.
"one of the statutory aggravating factors for sentencing for most offences (might be all offences - I'm a little rusty) is that the offence was carried out under the influence of alcohol."
"A gang of Muslim women who attacked a passer-by in a city centre walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because of their religion"
Whilst of course we have all seen cases where violence has not been adequately punished the scenario you describe is unlikely. Normally speaking being convicted of malicious wounding or occasioning grievous bodily harm will get you a custodial sentence unless there are very special circumstances and you have a very fast talking lawyer.
Normally speaking being convicted of malicious wounding or occasioning grievous bodily harm will get you a custodial sentence unless there are very special circumstances and you have a very fast talking lawyer.
It should, it really should.... but it doesn't.
For a first offence of violence (section 20 rather than 18) in the UK, provided you plead guilty, your sentence will go as follows:
Starting point 3 years, reduced by 1/3rd for early guilty plea, reduced by 1/3rd for mitigation [previous good character], and the remaining year will be suspended for 2.
Anyone in any doubt should pop along to their local court and check.
> Unlike these charming feminists, you mean?
There are feminists who are rabid asshats, I've never said otherwise. I said that I have never seen a single "Men's Rights" activist who wasn't.
Another poster suggested it's like with libertarians, that it's just the online Men's Rightists who are mental. That is possible, but even if offline Men's Rightists are normal and well-adjusted, it doesn't change that the online ones take bigotry and hate to a level rarely seen outside Stormfront.
I didn't know there were men's rights activists anywhere except for academic levels and fathers for justice. 99% of the people involved in most of these rage fests on either side have nothing to do with positive activism, and I expect 98% have nothing to do with the subject at home and just saw a piece of troll bait.
Okay, to make it simple.
If you want men to be able to go on the pill so that women don't have to be the one taking health risks in a sexual relationship when men are willing to accept the risks on their behalf, you are a men's rights activist. Yes, the male pill exists but it transfers risks from another patient and thus is deemed too controversial.
If you oppose child genital mutilation, you are a men's rights activist.
If you believe that, in a divorce, the children should go to the parent best able and willing to support them, you are a men's rights activist.
If you believe that, when a man is accused of rape, he shouldn't face charges, you are an arsehole.
"Yes, the male pill exists but it transfers risks from another patient and thus is deemed too controversial."
Well, it exists, but the current ones are either hormonal -- and not the 'nice' kind that the female one is, but the ones that result in a drop in sex drive (thus negating the need for a male pill in the first place) and a "drop in masculinity" (read, breasts) -- or aim to kill sperm (read, birth defects, yippee).
There is research on a male pill that doesn't have horrific side effects, and then we'll see whether your statement holds true, but I think it is unreasonable to ask men to take a dangerous medication so that women can stop taking a largely safe one.
"If you believe that, when a man is accused of rape, he shouldn't face charges, you are an arsehole."
I believe that if a man is accused of rape, there should be an investigation by the police, preferrably non-biased*, so that if there is insufficient evidence (such as no mitigating evidence), the investigation will end there. If there is some evidence, he should be charged and the case passed on to the CPS who will fairly review the evidence and, if there is sufficient evidence to make a conviction likely, will pass it on to the courts for a trial. I then expect the evidence to be presented fairly, and the jury to consider the evidence in a sensible manner, and make a decision based on whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt (something that is very difficult to do when there are only two witnessess, and one of them is in the dock). I also believe that, unless there is an overriding public benefit, either both the accuser and the accused, or neither of them, should have anonymity.
So, no, I don't think an accusation should lead to a charge - and I query which of us is the arsehole.
*Yes, I know - expecting the police to do their jobs properly, instead of trying to hit stupid targets, is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
"If you believe that, when a man is accused of rape, he shouldn't face charges, you are an arsehole.
1. If it later turns out the accusation is false, can that man be freed unreservedly, given a public apology in the national media and full compensation of the very best his earnings could be expected to be up until retirement (he won't ever be able to work again anyway)?
2. Can the person falsely accusing him be named in the national media and charged with perjury?
> And it is rare, please don't suggest otherwise.
I have to agree with the men's rightists that the official statistics are misleading in this case. The statistics you list are based on trial convictions/acquittals, but only cases where a) the police investigation doesn't uncover proof that the accusation is baseless and b) the prosecutor feels there is sufficient evidence for a conviction, go to trial.
My non-expert impression is that false accusations are fairly common, but very rarely lead to a trial.
These were bullies, not trolls. There was no collective mischief, this was just straight thuggish aggressive hate mail. The shit press liked the word troll, and misused it. You're better than that. It's like using 'hackers' to mean 'criminals'.
>>Thing is, from the wider online community, you'd be amazed how few of us care about the media painting trolls in a bad light. It's almost like we're sick of them and wish they'd just go away.<<
Totally agree, they can all fuck off and make the world a better place at the same time. I just don't think mislabeling bullies and threatening behaviour as trolling helps anyone. It makes threatening to rape someone seem less extreme 'because trolling lol', whereas calling it what it is means it's actually considered purposely for what it is.
Forum trolls are prepubescent wankers for sure though, gas the lot of them. Paint then in whatever light you like, and feel free to use real paint. This is about imprecise reporting from a vehicle that should know better, making it sounds like bullying and vile behaviour is a kind of fun internet thing.
Your American "friends" (look that word up, by the way, and learn what it means) are not so generally stupid they defend harassment and threats as "free speech."
We are doing our best to fight bullies here, too. We have laws against assault, which includes verbal threats. We prosecute those who make threats of bodily harm electronically as well as face to face.
We understand the distinction between the First Amendment right to, say, criticize our government without being charged with a felony, and the crime of inciting others to assassinate a politician, or threatening to do so ourselves.
A minority may not. But then, you are also, in a minority. You are prejudiced. You judge an entire country based on the words of a few, and insult an entire citizenry based on a false supposition rather than explicit actions or actual comments.
Wait elsewhere, won't you? Perhaps under that rock with the other bullies...
Realizing some may think I'm overreacting....I'm simply so tired of the kind of comment to which I'm responding. In my experience, those who accuse others of being ABOUT to do something are usually abusers. Anyone who has dealt with bullies or abusers on a regular basis recognizes pre-accusation, often based on a single past mistake, as a common weapon in the arsenal of chronic harm. To an abuser, the victim is always guilty, partly because the victim cannot ever prove perpetual innocence.
quote: "I've always said if you don't have the guts to say what you want to say to someones actual face then you don't have the right to say it whether enshrined in law or otherwise."
Now try and reconcile that with the right to security of person. i.e. if I have the guts to say exactly what I want to say to someone, and they then attack me because of it, who is in the wrong?
Either I have the (protected) right to say it, or they have the right to respond to my provocation with physical violence, which would suggest that I should not have said it in the first place. I'm assuming that the phrase "have the guts to say" is indicative of there being an expectation of violent response to what is being said.
So we have 2 situations; either Party B is committing an offense by violently responding to the speech of Party A, in which case "having the guts" is irrelevant as you would know you are protected by law, or Party B is legally allowed to respond with violence, and thus Party A does not in fact have the right to say it, guts or no guts.
Personally I would go with the first, and thus anyone "having the guts" to say something unsavoury directly to your face, rather than through a keyboard, should also be able to do so with impunity (unless you are some sort of violent criminal scofflaw). The second option is more akin to "I have the right to beat up anyone who says something I do not like", which does not sit well with me, or indeed any of the basic human rights works to date.
Note that as a seasoned internet hard-ass, I'm going to pretend I always have the guts to tell people exactly what I think of them to their face, because it is easy to be a hard-ass on the internet (also I can bench like a billion pounds and am totally a black belt in a thousand different martial arts) ;)
Frankly I do not care who goes on bank notes and if its going to be a source of trouble lets put no one on the things. I have to say that I did find the victim of this verbal assault something of a one track talker. But then so am I sometimes so perhaps that is a simple human trait?
The 'popular' idea that anyone who says any opinion is fair game for abuse has been dealt a blow and I'm happy about that. If you disagree with a view explain your disagreement and provide a reasoned alternative, attack the premiss of the idea, not the person.
If all you can do is attack or threaten the messenger you have lost the argument and shown you are a fool.
The score so far 2 fools down and a load more 'too stupid to get a life fools' to go.
This case (& other similar ones) is quite interesting, in the sense that there are different confounding factors at play, such as:
1. Never feed the trolls
Quite a few down-voters for my earlier post saying this, but I think this sentiment IS true, and yes, I do partially blame the victim(s). It always seems to me that (Twitter) victims of such abuse have never ever participated in an online (male) forum of any kind, and then sign-up to Twitter. They then post to say that they have such and such a view on subject X and are then completely surprised by the deluge of abusive puerile replies! What did they expect?! [I suppose they expected a meaningful and informed debate around their idea...., that is, they were far too naive].
2. Why continue using Twitter
If I went to a pub and was verbally abused and threatened would I, a) keep going back to that pub, or b) not go back. Hmmm? Tricky.
3. Twitter (Facebook) Moderation
Should the provider be accountable for published comments? Lots of sites have moderation leading to users being banned, why doesn't Twitter (&FB)?
4. Free Speech (in the Social medium)
When is free speech not free speech? I really don't know (apart from inciting racial hatred). Things appear to be even more confusing in the world of social media (e.g., decapitation videos on FB = good, breastfeeding babies = bad).
So, I think this case is really bizarre. Basically: Naive victims vs., nasty trolls.
The abuse from the criminals and others vile people were not puerile, did you actually read them? Threatening to cut them open with scissors, to pass them round their friends, to blow them up and to wait outside their house (and posted an address, thankfully an old one) and attack them. That's not puerile. It was relentless from lots and lots of nasty people. But you're saying that if you dare to have an unpopular opinion on social media you should have to put up with that, or shut up?
If someone says that to you on the street you can report them to the Police and they would at least expect a little visit. Why on earth should any other medium be different? You think it's okay to threaten people online as long as they behave on the street? How on earth can you even think the victims (those with a high profile or otherwise) are to blame because idiots can't play nicely?
"If someone says that to you on the street you can report them to the Police and they would at least expect a little visit."
Yes, and that highlights the difference. If somebody says this repeatedly in the street to your face, you can reasonably expect physical violence to follow from them. On Twitter you cannot because the trolls never leave their sofas. On Twitter you can also block them.
So as "intimidation" goes it is not remotely comparable. It is idiotic to send these two to jail because Ms.Criado-Perez cannot find the Block button on Twitter and prefers to shriek "Victim! Look at me! Victim!".
1) That lazy arsed foul mouth git might not get off the sofa, but by posting their address some other psychopath might. But that's okay is it? Yeah I can see that wouldn't incite any illegal behaviour at all.
2) So you block one git and he registers and gets another account and another and another. Blocking is not so easy now is it? So,it's acceptable that for expressing a perfectly reasonable opinion (ie the Bank of England should follow their own policies and put a woman on a bank note) the author of the opinion has to have their time taken up filtering through some really vile threats from never ending accounts? So,you think censoring someone for their opinion is acceptable by the use of threats and ineffectual social media companies?
I believe that jail is rarely the appropriate punishment for one-off and non-violent crime, but we do need something simple and easy to deal with utter dickheads - surely a few days in the pillory getting pelted with rotten tomatoes would be more appropriate?
Sometimes the old ways are the best ways...(okay, perhaps not trial by combat or chucking witches into ponds, but sometimes...)
> jail is rarely the appropriate punishment for one-off and non-violent crime, but we do need something simple and easy to deal with utter dickheads
I've often wondered if maybe Singapore doesn't have it right. I may be a heartless fiend, but to me it seems a better response to minor-but-not-trivial crimes than short jailtime or high fines.
"I've often wondered if maybe Singapore doesn't have it right. I may be a heartless fiend, but to me it seems a better response to minor-but-not-trivial crimes than short jailtime or high fines."
I'll answer that for you: no. Torture isn't "right". I thought this was a position that we could all get behind...
> I'll answer that for you: no. Torture isn't "right". I thought this was a position that we could all get behind...
I'd hold that there is a difference between torture and punishment, and that incarceration is no picnic either.
The guy in the article had walked along a row of parked cars and smashed their windscreens, for fun. I would hazard a guess that the owners of those cars would be more likely to feel justice had been served after this caning than if he'd been given fines, or a couple of weeks in juvenile detention.
The perpetrator clearly didn't enjoy the caning, but on the other hand he recovered in a week, and I wonder if he's not less likely to offend again than he'd have been if locked up with other minor criminals for some weeks?
Seems like a pretty good outcome to me.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's funny but there are people who say that this sort of thing shouldn't be possible, that you shouldn't be able to sprout such abuse online.
But surely it is better they can and so they can be held to account, thus ramming home the fact that they are in the wrong rather than they keep their crappy thoughts in their head.
Most of them weren't held to account : these two were the only ones the police managed to track down / make a case against.
I dislike Google and others constantly trying to find more identifiying information about me, but I also think people such as this deserve to suffer the consequences of their actions.
How can this be resolved ?
Ah, publicity. Strange and wonderous thing that it is. It involves, by definition, the public. Most of the public are nice, a few are not. To believe that you can actively seek publicity to further your own interests without attracting the attention of the more odd members of society? Naive. It's a wild wild web out there, ladies.
Well, it may be OK to spout abuse online, but actual threats are another level. It's not legal offline, so why should the medium make a difference? If you allow bullies to threaten, you remove freedom of expression, not enhance it. If you disagree with somebody, the English language offers a few options for expressing the strength of your disagreement:
- I am of a different opinion than you.
That's a fact, unless one of us is lying.
- You're wrong.
That's an opinion.
- You're an idiot.
This may be considered abuse, but it's still an opinion. You'll get away with it in most countries.
- You're stark raving mad and should be locked up.
Ditto. No direct threat.
- If you don't shut up, I'm gonna rape you with a baseball bat, and your little children too.
Doesn't count as an opinion in my book.
- Too late to shut up. I'm gonna rape you anyway.
That's I think the level we are discussing here. I don't know why it needs discussing.
Because any politician who sent the police to arrest a protester at speakers corner would get it in the neck from the "free press".
But if you protest online then anything can be made illegal if they can find one person in who would be threatened by it. But don't worry because this law will only be used against violent psychopaths - like all those other laws that will only be used against terrorists
...youngsters and younger people not having learned the great life lesson of 'Consequences'.
Or as any born before 1982 knows it...'How far can I push parent/teacher before I get a damn good thrashing?'
Knowing this lesson basically gifts you with the ability to think "Hmmm if I do this what could be the consequences?" I know in most cases if I go to do something that could cause issues a few scenarios flash though my head in milliseconds which generally make me not do it or change the plan of action.
But no nowadays with kids allowed to do pretty much as they please by society its all well and good till they stab another kid or abuse like this and then its "Wahh Wahhh It's not my fault!"
That's right. (Sarcasm alert:) Because I'm just sure it's the case that the thugs and disturbed sociopaths of the world are those who haven't been hit *enough* as children.
It is ironic that the above poster doesn't seem to realise that there can be 'consequences' other than violence. And that presumably the reason for this is because violence was the only or the most important consequence learned in childhood. And so the cycle continues.
Well I was born before 1982, and I knew (and experienced) that doing wrong would result in a few whacks of the slipper, so did my older siblings. So based on that are we all thugs or disturbed sociopaths?
We have been using the methods that you seem to believe work (though you have failed to provide even one example) since the ban on smacking your own child was introduced. Are we living in Utopia yet?
You incorrectly reversed my logic. I am not saying that all children who are hit grow up to be socialpaths. (I was one. And I'm not. I hope.)
I called out the original post on the fact that:
- I think it's incorrect to say that the "problem" people so often cited as part of our "society gone wrong" would be less of a problem if they'd been hit as children. Because they probably were.
- equating "consequence" with physical punishment is a simplification oft used by those in favour of it, in my experience. It does not follow that failing to smack your child means you offer them a consequence free existence.
There is no ban on smacking your own child (in the UK). So even if I believed such a thing could achieve a utopia, I wouldn't be surprised that we weren't there yet.
Thing is I can count one one hand the 'good hidings' I got from my parents. The smart kids learn quick. Plus when I think back yes I deserved it, I was playing up.
Sure some kids get beat up, that's never going to change and it's unfortunate. But a few swipes taught me to consider others and that my actions...can have serious reactions. Not everyone might think it a huge joke. Made me a more considerate person that doesn't think the world revolves around me. I know if I piss people off I could get a good kicking back.
I always say you'd never bring up a puppy with no training and discipline and a child is no different.
Yes, but once again you are equating discipline with physical punishment, as if they are the same thing.
I bring my children up with discipline and strong boundaries and consequences. They are loving and kind and socially adept and well adjusted and know right from wrong. As are the children of the large numbers of friends I have who also don't use physical punishment. So I just can't see the argument that it's necessary.
Plus, to be honest, unless I was extremely angry or in a very strong emotional state I don't believe I could mentally bring myself to actually deliberately hurt my children.
So why weren't they charged with threatening behaviour?
The concern is using the fact that electrons were involved to sidestep the law. In the same way that "conspiracy to" was used in 80s industrial disputes to add a 7year jail term to any action or "terrorism" is used for any anti-government protest today
Until they start actually punishing perps there is no disincentive and thus the vile behavior will continue. Had they been sentences to a year in jail plus fines plus all legal costs then the perps might think twice but not with a few weeks in jail. What an insult to the victims.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020