hels – Member

I am sure he means well (honest) but it is victim blaming

I don’t see how it is. I don’t like the idea but in itself it’s not victim blaming, it’s giving people more options. It could easily lead to ghettoisation if done wrong though and for sure that’s where victim blaming comes in- “if you didn’t want to get sexually assaulted, you should have gone in the women’s coach!” But he’s talking about a much wider initiative around it too not just a one-element “cure”

As far as enforcement goes, a full size mainline train’s about a quarter of a km long with often 1 or 2 members of staff trying to run the whole thing, and between stations it’s pretty isolating/enclosing. One carriage is more realistically enforcable with a small staff, and intrusions more easily defined and proven. So I suppose you could say it’s pragmatic. I just hate the normalisation/admission of failure.

But I’m a dude, so, spoke to a colleague who I know won’t travel on public transport late at night, she’s never had or observed a serious incident but fundamentally feels unsafe, I reckon it’s as much a perception thing as the real risk. But she says she’d travel in a female only coach if there was one. Sample of one, conclusive.

Either way there’s segregation, it’s just that the sort of segregation you get from a woman’s carriage still allows them to travel, whereas the sort of segregation from fear means they’re not on the train at all. And maybe over time you can fix the underlying cause but do you want to wait years for that when there’s a quick if less savoury fix?

Late night trains can be pretty grim for anyone, not just women, better policing and staffing is what’s really needed imo. But fear of crime is complicated, just making crime rare doesn’t always address the fear. Maybe this as part of a longer term improvement could be effective- don’t know. Worth investigating?

It’s hardly a new idea:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/women-only-train-carriages-could-introduced-4349573

has also previously shown that 43 per cent of women aged between 18 and 34-years-old living in London had experienced sexual  harassment in public spaces.

And.

“It is simply unacceptable that many women and girls adapt their daily lives in order to avoid being harassed on the street, public transport and in other public places from the park to the supermarket. This could include taking longer routes to work, having self-imposed curfews, avoiding certain means of transport,”

That’s dreadful. Are Women really having to take these actions, in the UK?
I certainly had no idea, I’ve haven’t witnessed a Woman receiving undesired approach from a man/men so didn’t really have an appreciation of the scale.

I agree with CG, as a society we need to sort this and while WoC might reduce a certain number of incidents. I’m not convinced its the solution.

It’s been suggested long before Perry, BR used to have them.

In fact Paddick discussed it as a policy in the mayoral elections years ago

Of course every time it’s been suggested previously, both left and right said it was a bo*****s idea

Now it’s been mooted by St Jeremy of course….

Travelling late on trains is generally nightmarish the drunks are often offensive to most travellers

OK. So a woman doesn’t use the “wimmin only” carriage one night. She is assaulted, and it comes to court. What do you think the defence lawyer is going to say to her ?

My money is on: “why didn’t you use the womens carriage – it is your fault – carrying that vagina about in public unprotected”.

And that ladies and gentlemen is enforced segregation.

Why not bring back stoning for adultery while we are there.

Its well intentioned from what i can see but its up to women to decide if they want this or not as I cannot speak for what makes them feel safe in public.

I’m not convinced its the solution.

I’m not sure anyone really thinks its the solution TBH, I think like a lot of stuff that comes from Westminster, it’s a discussion starter, like we’ve done here.

Why not bring back stoning for adultery while we are there.

Good point. Women only carriages would be like introducing stoning for adultery.

b r – Member
Sex offences on London’s Tube and train network rose more than 32 per cent to record levels last year, according to figures released earlier this month.

But in context:
BTP recorded 1,399 sexual offences in 2014-15 in England, Scotland and Wales – up 282 on the previous year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33979568

There are +24000 trains running every day.
So simple maths would suggest 1 offence recorded per 6000 train journeys, but add in 2500 stations and you get to 1 offence per 6900 train journeys/stations.

The problem I have with taking it down to stats is that it depersonalises the issue. This isn’t about the likelihood that someone gets sexually assaulted, each one of those is a traumatic event that impacts on someone’s life and deserves to be considered as a thing not a statistic.

Are segregated carriages the right approach to take, I don’t know, but it’s worth a discussion if it might mean fewer women exposed to violence.

I’ve had a few unpleasant incidents on the Tube – don’t know any of my female friends who haven’t. If I have to get the tube or a train or a bus late at night I will carefully choose where I sit to try and minimise the chance of anything happening. So I’d probably use a women-only carriage, or zone (more likely on the new trains). Likewise, if I’m walking down a street in the dark I will be hyper-aware of who’s around and will take evasive action like crossing the road to avoid a single male or group of men. (Men, you can help by making sure you don’t accidentally follow a woman on her own – cross the road and it’s obvious you’re not a threat.)

However I really don’t want to have to live like that, so I’d rather they weren’t introduced and we didn’t try to pretend that it was a workable long-term solution to the issue.

We need to try and improve attitudes as a whole across society, probably starting in schools and with the media.

Sample of one – I’ve experienced sexual harrassment more than once (from men and women). Come to think of it all occasions were whilst wearing a kilt. I still wouldn’t see a carriage to myself on public transport as a solution, and I’m not going to stop wearing a kilt when I want to. I am aware of a friend who has also experienced sexual harrassment (from women) when wearing a kilt.

Ban skirts, I say! Trousers only or clearly everyone of both sexes just gets “a bit rapey”.

What would the punishment be for committing an adulterous act in a women only carriage?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIaORknS1Dk[/video]

I don’t see how it is. I don’t like the idea but in itself it’s not victim blaming, it’s giving people more options.

It’s a sticky wicket.

Victim blaming implies “it’s your fault you were attacked; you deserve to be robbed; you were raped because you were asking for it” which are all bogus. No-one deserved to be beaten senseless, to be sexually harassed, everyone should be allowed to go about their business without someone else giving them a bad day.

However. We don’t live in a perfect world. Whilst the onus shouldn’t be on a victim to protect themselves from crime, the fact that crime is broadly carried out by criminals who care not for ‘should,’ it’s therefore sensible to minimise that risk.

I’ve used this analogy before but, say I was in the pub and left my phone on the table whilst I went to the loo, and when I came out it was gone. Did I deserve to be robbed? No. Is it my fault it was stolen? No. Is there anything I could’ve done to mitigate risk? Wait, actually, yes there was. (Or as a more STW-friendly example; you might well have right of way but that won’t do you much good when your bike’s under the front wheels of a car.)

We should all be free to walk the streets, to take public transport without being harassed, whether we’re female, male or anything else. But until we reach that utopia it’s surely sensible to consider all options even if ultimately some of them are really poor ideas, and in the meantime take whatever steps we can to keep ourselves safe.

Now that this thread has run to three pages let’s read what he said rather than what was reported:

Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself.

Outrageous!!!

hels – Member

OK. So a woman doesn’t use the “wimmin only” carriage one night. She is assaulted, and it comes to court. What do you think the defence lawyer is going to say to her ?

My money is on: “why didn’t you use the womens carriage – it is your fault – carrying that vagina about in public unprotected”.

And if the judge doesn’t instantly rip him a new arse, then that’s a wider problem with the court system not with the concept here, should be addressed by that means. Ongoing process I reckon though.

(leaving courts/lawyers aside, I reckon there’s a specific sort of arsehole who would see it as an invite/excuse though. And a lower grade of arsehole that’s less likely to intervene because she’s askin for it, the slaaaag. This becomes a balance of harm thing, don’t know how it levels off.

But Hels- what do you say to the woman who won’t travel on the train today, but would if there was a woman only carriage. That’s who it’s supposed to help. WTFU? Throw numbers at her? Take one for the team?

johnnystorm – Member

Now that this thread has run to three pages let’s read what he said rather than what was reported:

Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform, to the bus stop to on the mode of transport itself.

Outrageous!!!
Posted 2 minutes ago

Did he mention stoning women for adultery ?

OK. So a woman doesn’t use the “wimmin only” carriage one night. She is assaulted, and it comes to court. What do you think the defence lawyer is going to say to her ?

My money is on: “why didn’t you use the womens carriage – it is your fault – carrying that vagina about in public unprotected”.

And that ladies and gentlemen is enforced segregation.

That’s a very, very good point.

We see this in cyclist accident reports all the time. “Dave, 36, a keen cyclist from Dorset was killed yesterday after colliding with a Ford Transit. The cyclist wasn’t wearing a helmet.”

Even if it wasn’t used as ammo in court (and I’m not convinced that it wouldn’t, I think Hels is right), I have no doubts at all that it’s how the media would spin it. And then where are we? Neanderthal lads concluding “oh, she’s not in the women’s coach, she must be well up for it.”

nickc – Member
I’m not convinced its the solution.I’m not sure anyone really thinks its the solution TBH, I think like a lot of stuff that comes from Westminster, it’s a discussion starter, like we’ve done here.

Ok, fair comment. Perhaps I should have said that like others, I agree that segregation doesn’t really seem to be the answer.

I agree with Cougar’s post at the top of page 3, multi faceted approach to altering behaviour of men who are inclined to behave in such ways.

Not sure what you can do with a heightened or disproportionate fear and threat perception of some people. Just got to try to stop the bad behaviour.

Since you’d have to police who goes into a women only carriage then how about just policing the whole platform & train properly.

I’m no expert on train security, but I’d hazard it’s easier to police a single carriage than an entire train.

Why not bring back stoning for adultery while we are there.

Dunno about that, but I’d be happy to support stoning for wild exaggeration.

The seem to manage security okay on planes.

And anyway in effect by defining a ‘safe’ carriage you’d be saying the rest of the train is a free for all, nice 😥

The seem to manage security okay on planes.

That’s because being thrown off is a considerably greater deterrent.

And anyway in effect by defining a ‘safe’ carriage you’d be saying the rest of the train is a free for all, nice

It’s not a ‘safe’ carriage, it’s a women-only carriage. If you can’t see the difference, I’m not sure I can explain it.

But that does raise an interesting question. Is it particularly wise to encourage all the women who self-identify as “vulnerable” or are otherwise a little nervous of travelling alone at night to sit in one place where all the weirdos know where they are? Carriage 1, women only; carriage 2; sexual predators (buffet next door).

To drag out the cyclists metaphor (as I may have a fighting chance with that one) what you want is more women travelling about at night as they feel safe doing so, in the same way that we want more cyclists on city streets.

Punishing people by forcing them out of public spaces because they can’t currently so something every human being has a right to be able to do safely, is not addressing the problem, it is exacerbating the problem.

I don’t know what all the fuss is about. If we look overseas to more advanced, forward thinking societies we see that a solution to this problem has already been devised….

Scottish Widows has gone a bit OTT.

You do realise those are all men with Uzis under those black dresses.

Not exhaustive, but why not introduce;

Clear tubes for women to walk through from their front door direct to the destination of their choice, be it station/work/coffee shop/mall/park/hairdressers etc.

It would/could look like that old marble helterskelter game from the 70’s and keep women segregated from men, and clearly vise versa.

Then each sex could point and laugh at each other for either being “included” or “excluded”.

Men and Women are both sexual predators, this isn’t a new thing. This has been with the human race since we became the human race. The situation we appear to be in currently is one of threat from each other, be that men/men or men/women or women/men or women/women.

I’ve no answer other than to implement right now my solution above. 🙄

P.S and can I be allowed a heavy sigh that we are still debating this in 2015.

P.S and can I be allowed a heavy sigh that we are still debating this in 2015.

But Corbyn hasn’t changed any of his opinions since the 80s.

can I be allowed a heavy sigh that we are still debating this in 2015.

Of course, and I shall join you if I may. But actually debating it rather than ignoring it is a step forward.

Yup, at least you now have free speech…

You should think yourself lucky 🙄

What’s the problem with this? They have their own toilets and changing rooms and the middle lane on 3 lane carriageways seem to be exclusively set aside for women.
Didn’t realise Jeremy Clarkson was in the running though.

If we are all using clear tubes to get around can we add some water and turn our cities into an epic waterpark 😀

And the girls can all wear bikinis. Runs off to high five Quagmire

😆

Brilliant

Better resolution CCTV with audio and better coverage for evidence gathering and more importantly, increase in officers on trains and platforms, not only a visual deterant to would be offenders, but also there to provide intervention if needed. Education will work on the clueless, but not the determined. Handcuffs and cells are the only way of taking them out of circulation.

If we are all using clear tubes to get around can we add some water and turn our cities into an epic waterpark

Only if wet t shirts are involved
Images not posted to to ban hammer fear

Wet t-shirts and better resolution CCTV?

Well, that escalated quickly!