Congratulations to Nottinghamshire

[oggbashan]

LJ, as usual, you don't know the difference between a law and newspaper comment.

The law is against ABUSE, not a greeting to someone you know.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

LJ, as usual, you don't know the difference between a law and newspaper comment.

The law is against ABUSE, not a greeting to someone you know.

So wolf whistling a woman stranger won't get you thrown in jail? Yes or no?

(Mind you, a woman wolf whistling a male stranger gets off scot-free)

 

[oggbashan]

So wolf whistling a woman stranger won't get you thrown in jail? Yes or no?

(Mind you, a woman wolf whistling a male stranger gets off scot-free)

No.

We don't jail all assholes. Harassment is far more serious than a single wolf whistle.

Even if convicted of genuine harassment the penalty is likely to be a fine or community service. Abuse? Different laws apply.

Extract from CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) advice defining harassment:

Harassment

In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

Closely connected groups may also be subjected to 'collective' harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.

Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as 'stalking by proxy'. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No.

We don't jail all assholes. Harassment is far more serious than a single wolf whistle.

Even if convicted of genuine harassment the penalty is likely to be a fine or community service. Abuse? Different laws apply.

The same guy wolf whistling multiple women isn't worthy of jail. But hey, it's your overcrowded court system.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA

Oh, shite...

it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

And thanks to feminism women get scared very easily nowadays...

Let's not forget, folks, that women who do any of these things are excused from prosecution under this law.

 

[GuiltyPleasure]

Oh boo hoo. No self-respecting female likes being whistled at, receiving unwanted attention, groped or harassed in any way. It's time for men to realise they're not god's gift to passing women and that they're simply ridiculous. Mostly it's done to impress other guys anyway.

 

[Rachel_X]

Let's not forget, folks, that women who do any of these things are excused from prosecution under this law.

Unless they do it to another woman.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Women will not be excused under this law. But women catcalling and asking men to whip out their dicks is pretty much unheard of. What a stupid suggestion.

 

[duranman]

Going back to the original thread, have any of you guys ever BEEN to Nottingham? Something you should know: There are six times more women to men and that's a fact. That has been the case for over 50 years and the reason is unknown (though many of of the blokes are in prison!). Perhaps that's worth thinking about.

 

[Lancecastor]

Going back to the original thread, have any of you guys ever BEEN to Nottingham? Something you should know: There are six times more women to men and that's a fact. That has been the case for over 50 years and the reason is unknown (though many of of the blokes are in prison!). Perhaps that's worth thinking about.

False

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/features/2003/02/women_to_men.shtml

 

[oggbashan]

Women will not be excused under this law. But women catcalling and asking men to whip out their dicks is pretty much unheard of. What a stupid suggestion.

Women harassing men ARE covered by this law.

But, like men, they will only be prosecuted for repeated incidents that are threatening.

 

[Lancecastor]

English women aren't the perkiest ponies in the global corral.

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/732865/stream_img.jpg

 

[hashtag45]

I agree with 80% of their points.

But two of them are just ridiculous and even counterproductive.
How can one put whistling and comments like "Hei beautiful" or juvenile or idiotic comments shouted from the seat of a passing car, under the category of sexual harassment? They should be considered rude behavior or public nuisance, at the most.

They're counterproductive, in that they trivialize and take credibility away from the entire thing.
And it's also disrespectful towards real victims of sexual assault or abuse. To put serious issues such as sexual assault/rape, gender discrimination and so on in the same category as catcalling.
Poor construction workers. Their job will seem so boring, from now on.

 

[Disgustipated]

English women aren't the perkiest ponies in the global corral.

http://i.imgur.com/DHyw9ck.jpg

Agreed.

 

[hashtag45]

lol you're such a teenager.

 

[oggbashan]

I agree with 80% of their points.

But two of them are just ridiculous and even counterproductive.
How can one put whistling and comments like "Hei beautiful" or juvenile or idiotic comments shouted from the seat of a passing car, under the category of sexual harassment? They should be considered rude behavior or public nuisance, at the most.

They're counterproductive, in that they trivialize and take credibility away from the entire thing.
And it's also disrespectful towards real victims of sexual assault or abuse. To put serious issues such as sexual assault/rape, gender discrimination and so on in the same category as catcalling.
Poor construction workers. Their job will seem so boring, from now on.

Because those are editorial comments - not a realistic interpretation of the law. The original article writer was dramatically overstating the situation.

 

[hashtag45]

Because those are editorial comments - not a realistic interpretation of the law. The original article writer was dramatically overstating the situation.

Oh, you're right.
Poorly written article, or overstated in order to create a stir & sell the paper.

 

[Rachel_X]

Women will not be excused under this law. But women catcalling and asking men to whip out their dicks is pretty much unheard of. What a stupid suggestion.

Pretty much unheard of?
It's a regular occurrence on a night out in Newcastle.

 

[oggbashan]

Pretty much unheard of?
It's a regular occurrence on a night out in Newcastle.

And anywhere else that Hen Parties go.

 

[Rachel_X]

And anywhere else that Hen Parties go.

I once saw a guy have his clothes ripped off by a group of drunk women after they chased him down the street because "he were gorgeous!".

 

[hashtag45]

I once saw a guy have his clothes ripped off by a group of drunk women after they chased him down the street because "he were gorgeous!".

NZers add the other dimension to this:

Most of the men are so respectful of women, that they don't bat even an eyelash to even the skimpiest of dresses on a friday night, and act as if the girls are dressed for a business convention.

It was quite liberating in a way, to see that in Australia, guys act in the way that guys are supposed to act.

 

[oggbashan]

I live close to a city that has the highest proportion of students to residents of almost any place in Europe except Lille.

Every night is someone's 18th, 21st or engagement party. While each event is special to the person cooncerned, the locals feel that the partying is incessant every night during university terms.

Drunken women are a frequent sight in the city centre. It doesn't help public decorum that the all-night toilets are at one end of the main street away from the major venues.

The local military garrison was once warned about the dangers of aggressive women - 'walk away, don't respond' - was the advice given to soldiers.

As for drunken men? They are everywhere. Any passageway or shop doorway is awash with urine most nights.

If you're not wanting to party with them, the city centre is best avoided from 10pm onwards. If you DO want to party - any venue will oblige.

Edited for PS:

Despite the quote in the OP, any harassment of men or women during a drunken party in the city centre is likely to attract no more than Police verbal advice to tone the activity down.

 

[hashtag45]

It's not just England. Maybe not to That degree, but same over here, and back home too.
It's more about the fact that younger generations are less tabu about such things. Or, if you're conservative, you might say that they're more loose.

Whereas when I grew up, getting drunk on a friday night while bar-hopping (especially for girls) was frowned upon. Now it's often seen as cool and funny by some.

I did it too a few times (getting mildly tipsy and bar-hopping) and it was fun for a sort while. But after a while I grew out of it. I don't understand the appeal (as in the main source of entertainment, on a friday night) even for the younger generation.

 

[stickygirl]

I agree with 80% of their points.

But two of them are just ridiculous and even counterproductive.
How can one put whistling and comments like "Hei beautiful" or juvenile or idiotic comments shouted from the seat of a passing car, under the category of sexual harassment? They should be considered rude behavior or public nuisance, at the most.

They're counterproductive, in that they trivialize and take credibility away from the entire thing.
And it's also disrespectful towards real victims of sexual assault or abuse. To put serious issues such as sexual assault/rape, gender discrimination and so on in the same category as catcalling.
Poor construction workers. Their job will seem so boring, from now on.

Such a clueless dude thing to say.
So did your shouting at women from your car window class as simply a nuisance?
Go ahead and mansplain the whole 'little-lady doesn't understand real sexual harassment'. You can happily cat-call because somehow it's trivial ( to you ) and you haven't raped or sexually assaulted yet. Do you laugh along with the construction workers? Trivializing? Yup, that's a dude thing.

 

[oggbashan]

Such a clueless dude thing to say.
So did your shouting at women from your car window class as simply a nuisance?
Go ahead and mansplain the whole 'little-lady doesn't understand real sexual harassment'. You can happily cat-call because somehow it's trivial ( to you ) and you haven't raped or sexually assaulted yet. Do you laugh along with the construction workers? Trivializing? Yup, that's a dude thing.

The trivialisation came from the quote in the original post. The law would act for persistent harassment. If a UK building site had any complaints from passing women, the employers would act to stop it.

Attitudes are changing. So are construction workers.

But assholes are a universal menace.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]