Yeah don't care, it's just a monumentally shit pr campaign like a lot of things. you can clearly see the intent and you do have to be a bit deliberate in bad faith to read it that way (even though yes, some thickos will make that mistake genuinely). non-story played up to the usual crowd.
Here's a more controversial starter: Women are literally hysterical about harassment/assault. That line they always trot out about "everyone i know has experienced assault, why won't men listen?" is because they are, in many cases, near enough literally imagining stuff that isn't there, and expecting us to solve an imaginary problem. a large part of the real problem is that we don't actually engage with and try to separate hysteria out from the truth, we always dance around it, when honestly sometimes they do need to get a grip.
either kills the thread stone dead, or ten thousand post cunt off
The problem with these campaigns is that men can't win. Unlike most offences, with this kind of thing, where you draw the line between non-punishable behaviour and something that can get you in trouble is blurred, situative and varies from case to case and person to person. For example, if you nick a car, it's easy for you to know that you are committing a crime as soon as you break open a car door lock, smash a window or hotwire the ignition. No person in their sane mind can go before a judge and claim they didn't know they were stealing that car at that moment.
But if any man who is even going to approach a woman in the most well meaning way and just because he finds her attractive and would like to get to know her is at the mercy of that woman's mood that day, then you will have most men not coming up to women at all. Because they will have no way of judging where the woman thinks an offense begins. And she can then later at any point simply argue that the man was making her feel uncomfortable, without any objective evidence at all.
It's the sign of our times. You have millions of women moaning online that #metoo has killed chivalry and that men don't approach them anymore at all, not even for a friendly hello or a smile. They don't hold doors open for them, they almost don't acknowledge a woman's presence in a room with them. But what were women expecting. All this isn't really about bringing rapists and/or abusers to justice - to many fisherfolk anyway, it never honestly was - but about indiscriminate retaliation.
> if any man who is even going to approach a woman in the most well meaning way and just because he finds her attractive and would like to get to know her is at the mercy of that woman's mood that day,
I say it goes further. The amount of women I've have instantly become hostile with me for talking to them like I would a bloke where I just start a conversation out of boredom or observation is staggering. And occasionally you will get some white knight man/woman who will come to their 'defense' enabling them and possibly looking to kick my teeth in because I looked at her.
I've only had the same thing happen with a man once. I was on my own at a bar and so was he, so i tried to strike up a conversation and he instantly treated it as a hostile act he went so far as to try get me kicked out 5 minutes later after I left him alone. Truly bizarre behaviour from a miserable cunt.
I think hysterical youtube 'social commentators' should be made to get real jobs and contribute to the economy. If this were the 1970s he would be all 'oh but women should expect to have their bums felt at the office Christmas party' and so on. I'm not saying that this campaign is not a cack-handed police responses to rising awareness of sexual assault (and the limited resource to do anything about it) but like the tube campaign on harassment you just learn to ignore it after awhile and recognise that it's intended for actual issues.
>>72380 Not him but women are always pleasantly dismissive with me even when I'm being awkward. When I used to get drunk and drugged up at nightclubs I'd wander off and say hello and dance with random people without issue. I know I'm dead sexy but otherlad is right to ask that you reflect on if maybe there's something about your actions or how you appear that people find aggressive.
The still unanswered question is, how can a guy approach a woman, even if she ends up being not interested, without incurring a fine or much worse.
Not all men who have the courage to talk to women will be like "Phwoar, nice arse! You want my knob inside it?'. Most men aren't apeish brutes. They will geniunely just want to talk to somebody who in whatever way caught their attention. That, in its most general form, should not be something that the government should have any business regulating or pushing to where it becomes borderline illegal.
>>72384 Talk to your mum about it. Old media like On the Buses and Carry On reflected real social attitudes at the time and women who complained about it were mocked and dismissed.
>>72385 Try these steps:
>See someone you want to talk to
>Look at them, smile, and count to three in your head
>If she doesn't turn to face you, she's focusing elsewhere and you must immediately give up
>If she does, smile, tip your chin to her, and say one sentence. The sentence can be a question, but it has to be short
>If she doesn't answer, turns away, or does anything other than engaging you in conversation, give up here
>If the conversation continues, congratulations! You're on your own now because I personally never get this far
I truly and honestly cannot see you ever facing any complaints if you do precisely what I just said, and if you do, I'm afraid I will assume you did something else and are now lying to me.
>>72384 It's not quite exactly what you're talking about, but this video my dad sent me contains some old-timey actual maritime issues that made me feel uncomfortable in places.
I wasn't that fussed about "A lady policeman! Very good, darling!" at about 3:40 in the video, but remember that this is some local charity fun day of some sort, in 1979. You'd want the man doing the commentary to at the very least be nice to the participants. So at 5:10, when he announces to the entire stadium, "My God, not many of those in the pound!" while describing a woman who has volunteered to play an obstacle course, I absolutely did disapprove. Why would you choose to make her so self-conscious? It's just rude. And if that happened - and it obviously did because why would anyone fake a video of a non-League football fundraiser from 45 years ago? - then just think how wretched everything else must have been when there wasn't a crowd of children and families having a wholesome day out.
I dunno it just all seems ironic. we're just coddling women the same paternal way we always have done really. it's all "oh you're so strong and clever! you don't need men! you can do anything!" but also at the same time, "call the police if a man you don't like for any reason is near you at all, you might be in danger!"
no matter how fisherist we claim to be, deep down inside, we always still see women as children who are absolutely incapable of the remotest self-reliance, and need our protection.
>>72390 Lad, this is about women being able to walk down the street without the fear of getting molested. That's not coddling, it's basic decency and no different to calling my desire not to have my head kicked in a lack of self-reliance.
That's just the point though. Without the fear of being molested. Women's fear of being molested is irrational bordering on hysterical and has very little correlation with the actual danger of being molested. We could segregate society and send all the world's men to live on their own island, and women would still report that they don't feel safe.
Your comparison is a false equivalence even without that, because we very much do expect a reasonable and rational level of self precaution from blokes. if a bloke started whinging how he doesn't feel safe to go out in an area of demonstrably low crime rates and decent policing, we would dismiss him as being unreasonable.
we are just doing the social scale equivalent of stroking their hair and saying "shhh, it's okay darling."
>We could segregate society and send all the world's men to live on their own island, and women would still report that they don't feel safe.
I don't think that's true, bruv.
>>72392 >WOMEN'S FEAR OF BEING MOLESTED IS IRRATIONAL BORDERING ON HYSTERICAL
This is women having a very real danger of being raped and killed. It's as hysterical as preventing unabumming.
>WE COULD SEGREGATE SOCIETY AND SEND ALL THE WORLD'S MEN TO LIVE ON THEIR OWN ISLAND, AND WOMEN WOULD STILL REPORT THAT THEY DON'T FEEL SAFE.
All you need to do is be a decent human being. And if a lad start following you in the street then yes that would be a problem for the law. Stop being a hysterical woman before I give you a smack on the bottom.
>rapecrisis.org
>1 in 4women have been raped or sexually assaulted as an adult
>1 in 6children, have been sexually abused
both of those numbers have been extremely puffed when you dig into the data because the charites that look into these things have a peverse incentive to make the situation sound worse than it is, it has been a while since I've needed to interigate these numbers so appologies that I don't have the specifics on hand.
Lets state the obvious, if I declared '1 in 20 people have used cannabis or heroin in the last year', the cannabis is doing a lot of the heavy lifting but the phrasing implies a greater contribution from heroin then is true. the same is the case with the phrase 'raped or sexually assaulted as an adult'.
we then need to examine what sexual assualt means, if it means anyone ever in your entire life "giving you the ick" or you "receiving unwanted attention" which seems is the standard for sexual assualt being held by humberside police it would seem that 1 in 4 is reassuringly low. if it is the reality that 1 in 4 woman have ever had the ick, and that is all that happened we can live with that as a society.
I remember interrigating the 1 in 6 children have been sexually abused years ago, and it seem to cover what was equivocated as 'peer to peer abuse' which is to say normal play among children (things like kiss chase), and extended as far as teenagers 'exposing' other teenagers to pornography. if your mate in school ever showed you naughty pictures you were sexually abused by the stats stardards. I think there might even have been but I don't recall well enough to stand by the claim, something as absurd as 'self inflicted sexual abuse' for if you looked up porno yourself.
>BBC -Rape convictions fall to record low in England and Wales
The number of rapes litterally went down according to the title of the article and people find a way to frame it as a bad thing, incredible, at a certain point you have to ask what do people even want.
>The number of rapes litterally went down according to the title of the article
No. The number of people being arrested, charged and convicted of rape tells us almost nothing about the number of offences taking place. We know that arrests aren't happening because women don't have confidence in the criminal justice system. We know that cases aren't being charged because the CPS is massively under-resourced. We know that cases are facing massive delays in being brought to court due to a lack of barristers and judges, with many cases collapsing due to those delays - witnesses forget what they saw, the police lose evidence and victims just give up.
If we look at the relevant data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, we see that about 0.6% of people are the victim of rape in any given year, a rate which has barely changed since 2005.
The clear conclusion is not that the number of rapes have fallen, but that victims are being failed by a system that is simply incapable of bringing offenders to justice.
>>72395 >The number of rapes litterally went down according to the title of the article
Convictions, not rapes. On the upside, that means you've got a better chance of getting away with it, you rapey bugger.
Not every acquitted suspect is getting away with a crime. They might just as well be innocent.
Which is why conviction rates are usually a very poor metric or target. Because they completely disregard the possibility that somebody could be innocent. Yes, you can want to put more people in prison. But it doesn't necessarily mean that justice is served.
Fishpersons will tell you that no rape victim will lie about the circumstances of their rape. But the actual victims of a rape that really took place aren't the problem. It's those who pull allegations more or less out of thin air that we need to worry about. And it happens more than anybody will ever admit, for fear of repercussions.
>>72400 Would you say there are more false rape accusations than there are for other crimes? Rape is a hard crime to prove because there are rarely any witnesses. But it doesn't make sense for people to be falsely accused of rape more often than they are falsely accused for other crimes. So surely we could look at how many people are proven to be innocent of theft, or murder, or fraud, and extrapolate from there.
>>72401 There is research on the subject, and it turns out there are massively fewer false rape accusations, partly because of just how shitty the justice system is. You've really got to hate someone badly to want to put up with the shit a victim has to go through just to cause them some trouble. And when you inevitably come unstuck, you face being charged with perverting the course of justice, which has basically no limits on sentencing.
Okay let me phrase it differently then - provable rapes have gone down. But fear mongers speculate it is because the crown prosecution service are secretly prorapist.
That's not true the number is anything upto 80% of claimed rapes.
Just for obvious reasons no one wants to expressly say someone has made a false accusation of rape unless certain. They is a fuzzy gap between definitely didn't happen and definitely did happen, and that fuzzy gap is where a lot of them sit. And unlike rapes there isn't a massive national task force that is trying to prove that a false accusation happened so nothing but the blatant is ever recorded as such.
>fear mongers speculate it is because the crown prosecution service are secretly prorapist
I've shown you the statistics from the ONS proving that the number of rapes being committed hasn't actually fallen. I've explained that the criminal justice system is in disarray due to a lack of funding. Facts are not fear-mongering.
>Just for obvious reasons no one wants to expressly say someone has made a false accusation of rape unless certain. They is a fuzzy gap between definitely didn't happen and definitely did happen, and that fuzzy gap is where a lot of them sit
True, but the remedy can't be to limit the presumption of innocence or to move the goal posts of what constitutes rape and what doesn't. Which is what some fisherfolk have been advocating for for decades.
For example, in many rape cases in the U.S., the standard of proof has been lowered from reasonable doubt to preponderance of evidence. What may seem like a technicality is no small matter in establishing guilt. Because even with more evidence against you than in your favour, there's still a significant possibility that you are innocent, much more so than with reasonable doubt.
Of course you're going to get more convictions if you go by preponderance of evidence, but it doesn't mean more justice is achieved. Which brings us back to the point that conviction rates are a bad metric. Because they are. Getting more people convicted just isn't the same as bringing more rapists or molesters to justice. At least not for as long as you are implying - without much nuance anyway - that suspects who are found not guilty are getting away with a crime.
So you want to claim the number of rapes hasn't fallen.
whilst saying that the number of rapes that have been proven to happen (ie covicted) has fallen.
Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it. By definition you are talking from inside your own rectum. Since apparently the unknowable is known to you
How we arrive at 80% is very simple take the number of successful convictions of rape versus the number of accusations of rape. From the most basic level of reported to the police and not followed up to cases dropped by the CPS after deciding it is not worth the effort, to ones that arrive at a not guilty charge. Anything upto and including wrongful convictions overturned on appeal,by definition a potential false accusation of rape by definition. Any rape you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt has to be fairly considered a potential false accusation, by definition, even if you cannot prove it is.
>Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it. By definition you are talking from inside your own rectum. Since apparently the unknowable is known to you
But it's not unknowable, it's very well known. Every year, the Office for National Statistics surveys a representative sample of 50,000 people and asks them whether they've been a victim of a crime in the past year. It's a rigorous, careful piece of work that is considered the gold standard measure of the actual crime rate. That data shows that about 0.6% of people were the victim of rape in 2022, which is basically the same number we've got every year since 2005.
I'll post the link again, in the vain hope that you might actually click it:
>Anything upto and including wrongful convictions overturned on appeal,by definition a potential false accusation of rape by definition. Any rape you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt has to be fairly considered a potential false accusation, by definition, even if you cannot prove it is.
Please stop talking. You can barely string together a sentence, let alone a coherent argument.
>>72408 >representative sample
Purely out of interest, how is a representative sample determined? Is it statistically insignificant that you might accidentally pick the 'wrong' 50,000 people and slant the figures?
The main thing is that your sample needs to be randomised. And then of course the bigger your sample size, the more the law of great numbers will have an effect, i.e. the findings within your sample will more closely mirror those in your entire population. There are several different acknowledged sample randomisation techniques, and if you observe them, then by and large your sample counts as representative.
You will then still always have a slight bit of a sampling error because the only surefire way of eliminating such an error is if your sample size equals your population size. But with careful randomisation, the extent of that error will by and large be acceptable for your given purpose.
>>72408 >But it's not unknowable, it's very well known
It is by definition unknowable that is why we have a court system in the first place to establish the truth. you might as well ask people if joe biden is an alien and use the 0.6% that say yes that as proof that he is for all the meaningfulness it has. I am tired of hearing your no smoke without fire logic.
For a randomised sample, you just pick people at random. For a representative sample, you pick people at random, but select within that randomised group to make sure that your sample has the same demographic characteristics as the country at large - the right proportion of men and women, young and old, urban and rural, rich and poor etc. It's still possible to get bias in your sampling using this approach, but the maximum possible bias is greatly reduced because you've taken into account all of the obvious sources of bias.
>>72409 I think you want to look at something called Pearson’s rho. It’s a Greek squiggle I learnt about at university, and I forget how to calculate it now but it gives you the probability that you have just been unlucky with your sample. If you only ask two people if they’ve been mugged, the chance that they both have is much more than the chance that 100% of people everywhere have been mugged, which is what your data would tell you if you only asked those two people. So you need to calculate Pearson’s rho and make sure it’s less than 0.05, which would mean that there is a 95% chance that your sample is reliable. This number is completely arbitrary, but the calculations are valid and the rho value is often included in results when they get published. If you wanted to only pick results that were 99% likely to be correct or above, you could filter for that.
Honestly, I really, genuinely wish there was a way we could try it, because I'm willing to bet large sums of money. The very first night of male-free safety, women would spreading spook stories over social media about getting flashed by phantom ghost carpet-baggers.
Remember the needle spiking thing? It literally never fucking happened. Textbook mass hysteria. We all had to play along like it was even a remotely plausible thing to have happened in more than a tiny handful of cases, and ultimately, that does more harm than good in the long run.
>This is women having a very real danger of being raped and killed. It's as hysterical as preventing unabumming.
I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with that analogy. It's entirely hysterical if every time you walk down the street you worry about being unabummed, because you're exceptionally unlikely to be unabummed.
It was understandable that lots of people had fears about unabumming when they had just witnessed the sptember ninth or july seventh or taylor swift unabummings, but if somebody was scaring themselves silly by constantly rewatching the footage of those unabummings to the extent they fear it every time they leave the house, we would see it as a personal mental health condition that they should probably be given help for.
It's also amusing that you need to push it to raped and killed. There's roughly 600 homicides a year in this country, so you are in with about as good a chance as winning the lottery; and statistically it's twice as likely to happen to you if you are a man.
They are not in "real danger", they are in very insignificant danger. They, and you, are wasting time and resources that society could utilise on something actually valuable. Yes, yes, one rape is too many! But actually in reality, we need to be sensible and spend our money where it's actually going to do something.
>All you need to do is be a decent human being
sadly my idea of being a decent human being involves holding women to the same standards as men, like we would hold black people to the same standards as white, or the young to the same standards as the old.
