- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:10000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 2717 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
673 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 34507
I find this case so distressing and I'm not a woman. The whole thing just makes no sense.
|>>|| No. 34508
I think what can often get overlooked in our society is that rotters gravitate towards careers that put them in proximity of those they wish to abuse and exploit.
Sarah Everard's killer took a job as a policeman as it's a position of trust and authority that he used to his advantage to target women. There's certainly other coppers who joined up for less than honourable reasons. It's why paedos go for roles that will put them in proximity with children. I'm a financial adviser and, fuck me, maybe not every other IFA in the country is a crook but it's not fucking far off.
|>>|| No. 34509
"Rotter"? That's a stranger euphemism for "murderer", Moggy. Police recruits undergo psychological screening before they're given their roles, if people like Couzens and the ones who're under investigation and the ones running operations that are either unlawful or breach human rights not only get past the screening but find themselves able to act in these ways then it's not an occasional fluke, it's institutional and it's by design.
|>>|| No. 34512
You can screen for some things.
People with certain inclinations who are otherwise self-aware and high-functioning are fully capable of seeming like a completely normal person until it's too late.
|>>|| No. 34514
>Officers and staff are being investigated for looking up details of the Sarah Everard case on the police computer system
I'd be tempted to look it up myself just to be nosy.
>it's institutional and it's by design
You're just being silly.
|>>|| No. 34515
That doesn't account for them being promoted to, then propped up in despite repeated outcry, positions of power.
|>>|| No. 34516
>"Rotter"? That's a stranger euphemism for "murderer", Moggy.
That was a very useful thing to say, a wonderful contribution.
>it's institutional and it's by design.
It's probably not though, is it. What exactly are you suggesting and is there any proof of it?
|>>|| No. 34518
I don't think that particular combination of words really means quite what you're using it to describe.
There's a level of complicity to bad policing, but I think it's a stretch to say it's entirely the intended operation of a police force; if for no other reason that getting bad press over it makes them less trustworthy and therefore less effective in their real role as a social control mechanism.
Institutional is a buzzword that gets thrown around a lot nowadays, and it's worth thinking about what it really means. In this context it describes the way humans naturally cover up for their mates, or for things that would make them look bad. Every institution has institutional problems, things that become baked into the culture over the years, and the only way round that is somehow not having institutions. Whereas what people seem to mean when they use the word these days is an assertion that the institution is fundamentally built upon that flaw.
|>>|| No. 34522
I don't really see the point being made here. Is the suggestion that developed vetting should include interviewing every single person you've ever met to ask them what nicknames they had for you?
This story smacks of a lay person not understanding what they're reporting on who is trying to whip up outrage amongst lay people who don't understand it either.
|>>|| No. 34524
It hardly takes a degree in human resources to see why his implication is dumb as bricks.
|>>|| No. 34525
No, the suggestion is that he's clearly not "fully capable of seeming like a completely normal person until it's too late". If your screening process isn't picking out someone with that many publicly known tells, what's it doing at all?
|>>|| No. 34527
Well, the fisherfolk lot are trying to push a new law through that basically makes "making a woman feel uncomfortable" a crime, so yes, I suppose so.
|>>|| No. 34529
That one certainly is. Again, what's the screening doing if it's not screening out rapists and murderers who aren't capable of hiding it, as happened here?
|>>|| No. 34530
When there's a box on the questionnaire asking "are you planning on raping or killing anyone?" they tend to answer "no".
How exactly do you screen out rapists and killers?
|>>|| No. 34531
Are the concepts of background checks and psychological evaluation totally new to you?
|>>|| No. 34532
Explain to me how they work and how they'd have been able to weed out Wayne Couzens when the current vetting processes didn't.
|>>|| No. 34533
They work the same way as the current ones only you have higher standards for screening out authoritarian bullies and people who are known by their colleagues as "The Rapist". I know it's a cutesy nickname that every other lad gets but you know, I think they can probably cope with not putting anyone called The Rapist in a position of authority over women. I know it means all the countless harmless lads, who don't make anyone uncomfortable, but are nonetheless called The Rapist, won't get to be police but I think that's just a sacrifice we'll have to make.
Certainly not as though someone being called The Rapist is a reason to investigate them further, given that they are incapable of passing as normal, you think they'd check and then notice other red flags.
|>>|| No. 34534
How would this screening uncover that he'd been nicknamed 'The Rapist' in a former role?
|>>|| No. 34536
Don't know about you but I'd certainly feel uncomfortable with repeating rumours and things I can't necessarily prove officially. Not least as anyone who has their clearance denied is going to appeal and you're going to look a monumental twat when you then say '...yeah I called him a rapist because I heard rumours and he's a bit weird'. It might be how you get Savilles but you need some pretty good proof before you say anything for good reason.
If we're talking about how many people they ask then personally I have already found that programme difficult as someone who doesn't maintain multi-year friendships with professionals.
|>>|| No. 34537
How do we know they didn't already do that? If you asked my bosses I guarantee they wouldn't know even half of the nicknames people have at work.
|>>|| No. 34538
If it was as easy as just making the current process better, don't you think they'd just already have done that? If the counter-argument there is "well of course they haven;t done that because they want rapists and bullies, it's institutional" then that also tells you why it doesn't matter how hard you screen, because the pigs want to let rapist bullies in either way. You are arguing from a totally non-pragmatic position that assumes in complete naivety that anyone at any level of these organisations is acting in good faith or gives a fuck.
And frankly that is by far the bigger and more realistic threat to society than any crypto-sexism or institutional carpet poaching. It's just good, old fashioned, honest fecklessness.
|>>|| No. 34539
>You are arguing from a totally non-pragmatic position that assumes in complete naivety that anyone at any level of these organisations is acting in good faith or gives a fuck.
Pretty sure I was arguing that they don't and that it's a problem.
|>>|| No. 34687
Everyone is talking about who can handle the McSpicy challenge. So I decided to see what the fuss was all about and took on the challenge for myself. Sadly the experience wasn't quite what I expected after being ruined by sexual harassment in my local McDonald's.
So let's start from the beginning - I'd held back on the snacks throughout the day so I was extra hungry for the talk of the town treat. Dramatically gasping for nutrition, I headed down to my nearest McDonald's on Jameson Street around 8pm. Being the modern woman I am I opted to order on the electronic screen. Feeling excited I took my number 60 ticket and waited in line.
Sadly my experience was completely ruined by a drunken Stella-reeking man who thought he was the dogs bollocks of the town when in fact he was just rather embarrassing and creepy. A man stumbled in to McDonald's shrieking at the top of his voice while saying "hiya mate" on the phone and cackling his head off. At first I didn't think much of it and thought he was just a drunken man coming in for some food to sober up - many of us can relate. But his volume and husky voice was all anyone could hear. He was shouting down the phone to his friend about nonsense.
At first I didn't think much of it and thought he was just a drunken man coming in for some food to sober up - many of us can relate. But his volume and husky voice was all anyone could hear. He was shouting down the phone to his friend about nonsense.
He was just being completely obnoxious and thought it was the most hilarious thing ever. He said: "Yeah yeah I'm in McDonald's mate where you at?" He ordered his food and stumbled over to the waiting-for-food area. His trousers were falling down and he stunk of beer. I noticed he was wearing an eye patch and looked like he had been in a fight of some kind.
But I was trying not to be judgemental and was playing on my phone whilst I awaited for my food - it looked like it was going to take a while. Across the other side to where I was stood were two young girls. They were smiling and giggling together, but not before long the creepy drunk stumbled over to them. On the phone he said to his friend: "There's some right girls in here. I don't know how old she is." He was laughing like an evil villain. Looking slightly disgusted, the two of them ignored him. He went over to one girl and said: "How old are you?", whilst breathing heavily down her neck. She said: "I'm 15." The man I am going to nickname McCreepy said: "Oh are you?" He stumbled away and said to his friend: "Ayyy she's 15 mate. Yeah I just asked her. Am I going to get arrested? Shhhh I'm gonna get arrested in here me."
I was watching over in case he said anything else to the CHILD. The frightened girl luckily was called up next to get her food and managed to escape his weird ways. I then became his next victim. I moved away from him, making quite the point I didn't want to speak to him. Yet he kept coming closer to me. When I say closer, well he was almost pressed up against me. But I didn't want to cause a fuss as he had quite an aggressive tone, and well, the eye patch which looked like he'd been in a fight.
His eyes were piercing at the back of me staring at my bum. Literally what could I do - not have a bum? If I turned the other way there he'd either try speak to me or make comments about another part of my body. There was no way out. Trapped in McDonalds. Starving. Horrified. Over it. I turned around and glared at him as he was smirking from ear to ear. He said to his friend: "Aye. I'd love to pin some of these birds in here down right now. She's proper sticking her bum out this one." The creepy laughing went right through me and I was really starting to feel uncomfortable.
Not that it matters what I was wearing. If I was there in underwear it's still uncalled for, but I had on a smart work outfit, a blouse and a pencil skirt. I wasn't engaging with anyone I was literally there to get food after work. Still waiting and almost being reduced to tears by this imbecile, I moved even further away from him. He then said: "Oh mate she's a fucking twat. Little twat. If girls don't want to be looked at then they shouldn't wear short skirts should they." The room was silent apart from his echoing voice. Everyone felt so awkward and uncomfortable. His stench could be smelt from the other side of the room and he was still blabbering on and on and heckling with his disturbing laugh.
I was counting down the seconds, and sweating until it was my number called. 58 had been called, I thought "it's got to be me soon", but the wait dragged on. Finally! It's me. The lady behind the counter called, "number 60", as I ran up grabbed my bag of food and sipped on my Fanta. I swiftly walked out of McDonalds and the fresh air outside never felt so good. He's gone. I'm fine. Never have to see him again (hopefully). Thank goodness.
https://www.hullPlease ban me.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/all-wanted-mcspicy-burger-didnt-5664688
|>>|| No. 34689
>If I was there in underwear it's still uncalled for, but I had on a smart work outfit, a blouse and a pencil skirt
Hasn't she ever been ravenously felt up by a partner while trying to get ready for work?
|>>|| No. 34692
We've all met a loutish drunken wanker at some point in our lives. It's awkward when they inconvenience me, it's awkward when they inconvenience ethnic minorities, and it's awkward when they inconvenience this woman. I guess if her whining rids the world of wankers forever, then good for her and she's saved us all, but the whole thing reads to me like she's outraged at herself suffering a hardship that is almost universal.
|>>|| No. 34705
You've got to remember that Septics have taken paedo hysteria to a whole new level. If you've been on rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk then it's a regular occurrence for American men to post about how they had the police called on them for taking their children by themself to a playground or for even being alone in the vicinity of a park.
|>>|| No. 34713
Our resident Americans have learned to end their posts with ", lads." now, I see.
|>>|| No. 34714
I added as many disclaimers as I could. But maybe you are not serious. Perhaps your posts are all satire. The really unsettling thing is that I really, honestly cannot tell.
|>>|| No. 34720
Don't take anything here at face value. It's all satire. And some of it is double-satire so it's identical to something posted at face value.
|>>|| No. 34721
>Everyone who is doubting or minimising her story is part of the problem. You should be ashamed, lads.
At least you didn't say 'we' this time.
Trust but verify is fair. If you're not in a position to verify then it's likely that your trust matters very little, so why not engage in salacious attacks on character for the bants? Nothing is sacrosanct, and elevating a particular concerns above others will simply make them targets of ire which won't be seriously considered within your earshot.
|>>|| No. 34722
Hopefully soon they'll invent the anti-wank shock collars from my Zootopia erotic fanfics, to control men like the filthy predatory beasts they are. It's the only way of saving society from those brutes. Big, strong, aggressive, predatory monsters. Mmmfff, yes, that's it... Utter beasts who can't be controlled, fuelled by pure primal sexual instinct and lust. Oh, God, yes. Animals.
It can't just be me who sees this inherently fetishised psycho-pathology behind all this bollocks right?
|>>|| No. 34729
I'm incredibly uncomfortable talking about this but if you catch something in the corner of your eye then you might glance before mentally slapping yourself. I can see how a woman might get the wrong idea.
Not saying any of this is right, I'm just saying.
|>>|| No. 34741
>I'm incredibly uncomfortable talking about this but if you catch something in the corner of your eye then you might glance before mentally slapping yourself.
Why would you mentally slap yourself for glancing at some assets?
|>>|| No. 34742
Firstly, that man should have been shot in the face on the street for everyone to see. Keep his phone on so his cunt friends hear too. Secondly, I really wonder about whoever took that rabbit photograph, were they thinking "sexy rabbit photo" at the time or was it unintended? We may never know (until Vice does an article on it in eight years time).
|>>|| No. 34743
The oldest version of it that tineye can find is on lachshon.de, a defunct content agg.
|>>|| No. 34755
>Patel said she was “determined to give the police the powers they need to crack down on perpetrators and carry out their duties to protect the public whilst providing victims with the care and support they deserve”.
Well done Priti, now when I speak out against your repeated efforts to increase police powers, I'll be labelled a sexist. n1 m8
|>>|| No. 34756
They already pulled that one on Labour for some stuff that supposedly protects women in the policing bill.
|>>|| No. 34768
I don't know why it's never occurred to me that they only cynically push this shit as an excuse for the ever creeping tendrils of authoritarianism, but it makes sense. I actually thought the government was full of cloud cuckoo land fisherfolk who think making a law will stop wolf-whistling.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]