Forum menu
Art thou officer?
Or art thou base, common and popular?
@stevextc – some of your attitudes and opinions of and towards violence on this thread are very worrying, I have to say. As in, needing-professional-help level of worrying.
I don't know why I'm bothering (joke) but you need to examine your beliefs and indoctrination.
What is it makes you believe that violence is intrinsically bad/wrong ?
You say that violence needs to be normalised because it’s the only language some people understand. Did you stop to think why that might be? It’s because people like you, a generation before, taught them that violence was the only option. All it does is push it on down the line.
I haven't said violence is the only option?
I'm simply saying it is a valid option and it's de-normalisation leads to a less civilised society.
You can speculate as to "Why" for some people it's the preferred option all you like but its irrelevant in context. The fact is if someone doesn't speak (say) Spanish then speaking to them in Spanish in a kind considerate way won't help talking to them in a language they understand will stand a better chance.
The real reason is because it gets them what they want...and it works because people don't stand up to them.
The less people stand-up to them the more they get what they want without consequence.
What all this basically comes down to is the "so what are you going to do about it" ... whether that is violence or not. The two are the same.
A direct example ... just try an explain why one of these is bad and the other acceptable or why one is worse.
Take the parking on double yellows .. if the police woman say's "say anything and I'll plant drugs in your van" how is that intrinsically better than "I'll beat the shit out of you"?? Personally I much prefer the 2nd one for multiple reasons... from "really, in front of the supermarket cameras" to the consequences... one I might spend a few hours/days/weeks in hospital .. the other I'm unemployable.
Their is no defence against having a weapon or drugs planted or simply sharing your registration with friends to stop you every time they see you.
Why do people openly jump the queue in the supermarket - it's a very simple answer.
Because they want to and no-one can stop them.
Some guy pushes in front of you at the checkout ... what are your options?
You don't have any ...
You can try and talk to them ... they will just ignore you or threaten you they fully expected this when they just pushed in and everyone else saw them push in .. but noone will say or do anything because there is nothing you can legally do except appeal to a better nature they don't have.
When they laugh in your face and say "yes I pushed in, what are you going to do about it" that's it.. they pushed in, there is NOTHING you can do and they know it.
I don't know what world you live in but do you really think empathising with some thug beating you round the head with a baseball bat is going to get them to stop? How do you start the conversation ? THUD .. did you have a bad childhood ? THUD ... can we talk about it? THUD
If you come across an old man being mugged in a subway do you reason with the mugger or ask about their childhood? or perhaps you just pretend you saw nothing and walk in the other direction?
To be honest, I don’t know why I’m bothering – you genuinely don’t want to understand the issue and won’t take on board that there might be a better path out of this than “might is right”. Isn’t it about time we tried to be better?
To take my recent real life example how do I stop someone stealing from my drive in front of me?
I start off asking them to stop ... one of them simply comes up to intimidate me whilst the other carries on?
What would you have me do?
Let them take it?
Pay them to leave?
Ask if they are doing this because they had a bad childhood?
molgrips
@stevextc you are really not getting it at all.
Violence against men comes from certain situations. You may think it’s normal to get into fights and have been stabbed a few times, but it really isn’t. And it’s not that hard to avoid as you say, you can avoid that estate or avoid that end of town on a Saturday night.
But for women, violence, indimidation and abusive behaviour is everywhere. It could be at work, on a bus, in any social sitaution. We’re not talking about rape and murder, we’re talking about behaviour that puts women in fear.
I don’t even know what your point is. Are you saying it’s fine and there’s nothing to worry about? Or are you saying that men have it just as bad? Because we really really don’t. You need to really listen instead of reaching for the ‘but what about meee?’ card. The fact that you are refusing to really listen and understand is in itself sexist.
Let me explain that differently.
The overwhelming threat to FEMALES is within the home ... this threat increases dramatically, especially at the serious end of bring killed and put into a suitcase in certain sectors of the UK population but we are not allowed to discuss that.
The actual chance of being attacked by a male stranger is very small. The chance that is a serving officer even smaller but it makes good media.
Someone else was saying women have a right to be scared if they want regardless of the statistics (sic) ... and they and indeed everyone else does, along with mice or spiders or ghosts..
The reality is that deaths and serious injury by mice attacks are vanishingly small, ironically probably excepting the accidents that happen avoiding the mouse.
It's not impossible a mouse could carry a nasty pathogen but fear of all mice is irrational.
I remember as a small child we used to sleep in a old morgue (local to STW HQ) where I had an irrational fear of ghosts. It probably wasn't helped by the late night ghost stories ... but the point is ghosts don't exist.. the witches were just persecuted women a majority actually healers but belief made this "bad".
Look into the tragic story of Jennet Device ...
What is most tragic is we still don't learnt he lessons...
Politically motivated commentators have tried to explain her testimony against her own family as evidence for abuse by her family... whilst totally ignoring the fact she was threatened with being hung or drowned unless she testified.
Anyway, the point of that is that of course people may chose to be scared of anything they like.. but I don't think/believe going along with it is the correct option.
Lets instead worry about honour killings and FGM a much more real threat.
stevextc, quite a lot of strawman/strawbat arguments to ignore there from the off* But I’m a sucker for discussion.
*And here’s possibly another one:
Are you saying that a policewoman parking on double yellows warrants you physically ‘beating the shit out of her?’ Because she abused her position/power to get a sandwich?
You’re probably going to ask what would I do if a police car was parked on double yellows for the police lady to go to the supermarket and grab a sandwich. The answer is nothing. Nothing at all. In the grand scheme of things. Do you go around filming people who park on double yellows without a blue badge? Maybe that would help? Or should you beat the shit out of them? In fact why not get your video skills up to scratch and film wrongdoings? It may help you stop the itch to visit bodily harm on them? What if they have a blue disability badge yet you see them walking and smiling? Drop-kick them? See how strawman arguments work?
I detect your baseball bat scenario was some kind of rhetorical scorn/strawman (?)
But it’s an interesting straw-man, as it gets propped up so often.
If someone were to come at me with a baseball bat I run like fury. I was trained to some degree in self defence, de-escalation and immobilising from working in the mental health field. Baseball bats are taser-level issues. Running away is best.
Of course, if I had a taser it would be easier.
Would I empathise with someone swinging a baseball bat at me? Well, not right away, not right off the bat 🥁😃
Depends doesn’t it? Would I later? Again, you tell me why (in your hypothetical scenario) why they’re swinging a baseball bat at me and I’ll answer if I ‘empathise’ with them or not. Unlikely. Again, you tell me why they did it?
Assumedly though, YOU might empathise with them? Especially if I’d wronged them and they were simply trying to ‘beat the shit out of me’?
The actual chance of being attacked by a male stranger is very small. The chance that is a serving officer even smaller but it makes good media.
Violence comes in many forms* Do you only count physical violence?
*Edit Definitions vary
Of course, if I had a taser it would be easier.
Ironically you would taser someone though??
p7eaven
Violence comes in many forms. Do you only count physical violence?
That's kinda my answer to the question above.
Are you saying that a policewoman parking on double yellows warrants you physically ‘beating the shit out of her?’ Because she abused her position/power to get a sandwich?
No I'm saying she should lose her job and be prosecuted for putting people's lives in danger ... instantly, no pension, no discussion but that the person reporting her should be protected.
There is absolutely no difference to me in if she beat someone up for no good reason or she parked irresponsibly and endangered lives for no good reason.
The end result is the same.
You’re probably going to ask what would I do if a police car was parked on double yellows for the police lady to go to the supermarket and grab a sandwich. The answer is nothing. Nothing at all. In the grand scheme of things. Do you go around filming people who park on double yellows without a blue badge? Maybe that would help?
So she put peoples lives in danger for no reason other than no-one dare say anything or report her without fear of intimidation and in the vast scheme of things do you think that's OK?
In fact why not get your video skills up to scratch and film wrongdoings? It may help you stop the itch to visit bodily harm on them?
Where or how do you come to the conclusion I have an itch to visit bodily harm on anyone?
I'm simply prepared to use violence when it's appropriate or safer.
Of course, if I had a taser it would be easier.
I'm intrigued, are you implying a taser is non violent?
If someone were to come at me with a baseball bat I run like fury. I was trained to some degree in self defence, de-escalation and immobilising from working in the mental health field. Baseball bats are taser-level issues. Running away is best.
Of course, if I had a taser it would be easier.
Would I later empathise with someone swinging a baseball bat at me? Well, not right away, not off the bat. Depends doesn’t it?
You (hypothetically) tell me why they’re swinging a baseball bat at me and I’ll answer if I ‘empathise’ with them or not.
The usual reason, you didn't want to give them your phone and wallet.
raincloud
Ironically you would taser someone though??
Herein lies the irony ...
or would accept "an authority figure" tasering them but punching them in the face is somehow different?
Or is threatening to taser them different ?
I'm still waiting for what is the correct response to people stealing from me with menaces...
Ironically you would taser someone though??
If I was legally issued with one then possibly.
Even then if I could safely and surely run to safety/if the attacker wasn’t in a closed area/I wasn’t required to immobilise them on account of other people in the vicinity being targets.
I was simply noting that the only real ‘easy’ way of disarming an attacker who has a baseball bat is from a distance. ie a taser (unlikely as they are only legal for law-enforcement or SO)
I’m still waiting for what is the correct response to people stealing from me with menaces…
If someone comes at you with a baseball bat to get your wallet then take my advice and run as fast and as far as possible - or risk dying by trying to disarm them/throw a rock at them etc, find a bigger stick and come back at them. Your choice. Either one is ‘correct’.
This is becoming a sideshow so maybe open another thread about self-defence/reasonable force?
To translate this to daily life… when someone just pushes in from of you in the supermarket queue what do you do?
The truth is there is NOTHING you can do except perhaps ask the person on the checkout not to serve them… and they know that.
Let me guess, er...’beat the shit out of them’? But you can’t, because the law is a big liberal ass. And that’s what’s wrong with modern life? We’d be civilised if physical violence was the normal response to any wrongs?
The usual reason, you didn’t want to give them your phone and wallet.
Do you have statistics for that? Or are you guessing in order to support your argument?
I am guessing (maybe wrongly, maybe to support my argument) that baseball bat crimes are most commonly by males/male gangs who believe that they are ‘righting wrongs’, ‘asserting themselves’, ie gang violence?
This thread has now become your strawman argument about self-defence.
It's hardly a strawman, I've had several incidents in the last few weeks of people trying to steal from my drive and refusing to stop.
The reason for this and other unpleasant behaviour mostly comes down to one thing. We have come to a point where these people can do what they want without redress because everyone is scared to do anything.
We live in a world where a couple of people with Swiss Army knives can intimidate an aircraft full of people into dying and where a subset of society can do what they like without redress.
This has pervaded society from kids riding wheelies through Asda to Boris habitually lying to parliament and even when everyone present knows he and can prove he is deliberately lying aren't allowed to actually say so ... and we call that "civilised".
It's ALL the same thing ... it's a threat and a "what are you going to do about it ..nothing" be it "violence" or not.
When we go back to a female being wolf whistled I am far more reluctant to become involved nowadays because if I do and it escalates to violence I will be the one in court.
To take your Taser example ... assuming you see a woman being wolf whistled are you willing to use one or any other form of "violence" if the situation escalates or will you run off and leave the woman or something else?
To then extend that ... the woman probably (almost certainly) wasn't in any actual danger but what if this is one of those rare times where you think she is? Does that change your view?
The real point here is by you as a male intervening with the dick who wolf whistled increases the chance that this will escalate to violence.. because the dick who thinks wolf whistling is OK is probably the same dick who will not back down and resort to violence against another male in front of his mates.
If you view the bike theft video I posted you see this reluctance of them males to become involved. A decade or more ago I was on a bus where some youths were threatening some pensioners and noone would get involved. I did and removed the stolen umbrella with a wrist lock and told them to get the F-off the bus... the driver thanked me and then advised me to get off the bus as well as it was on video and I'd potentially end up being prosecuted. This wasn't long after I returned to the UK where this had changed radically in the years I'd been away.
This didn't happen in my youth .. in my youth 4-5 people would have stood up to a couple of youths. They would have realistically expected to have a few people put them in their place but now most people and especially blokes are scared to do so.
To translate this to daily life… when someone just pushes in from of you in the supermarket queue what do you do?
The truth is there is NOTHING you can do except perhaps ask the person on the checkout not to serve them… and they know that.Let me guess, er…’beat the shit out of them’? But you can’t, because the law is a big liberal ass. And that’s what’s wrong with modern life? We’d be civilised if physical violence was the normal response to any wrongs?
No you and others in the queue just make it clear their behaviour is unacceptable.
because the law is a big liberal ass
The application is a big ass... and it's on the side of the people who want to act like dicks.
If you even lay a hand on them to remove them from the queue them this sort of dick will have you up for assault or perhaps be waiting outside with the baseball bat.
We’d be civilised if physical violence was the normal response to any wrongs?
We'd be more civilised if the expectation of any sort of retort was expected.
Did you watch the Brighton supermarket ?
The supermarket can do what? Ask them to leave nicely?
If they ignore it then there is absolutely nothing they can do to protect their customers.
If they even try and stop them by grabbing the bars they will be up for assault...
Don't you think something went wrong?
p7eaven
Do you have statistics for that? Or are you guessing in order to support your argument?
You might want to look for deeper meanings... why do people lie, steal, cheat or threaten people unless they hand over something they want.
The simple answer is because they can and there is no recourse.
To take my example from parliament ... the PM can openly lie and nothing happens (he gets asked to correct and refuses) but the person who actually say's he's lying gets a very real punishment.
Boris will and does deny what he said 10 mins previously - Ian Blackford gets castigated for calling him out when every person in the chamber knew he was bare faced lying.
Do you have statistics for that? Or are you guessing in order to support your argument?
You might want to look for deeper meanings*… why do people lie, steal, cheat or threaten people unless they hand over something they want.
*This is what I’d encouraging you to do. Look deeper.
ie you seem to have sidestepped examining statistics for baseball bat crime (and my proffered ‘deeper meaning’ re examining male violence/‘righting wrongs’) in favour of your ongoing discussion about self-defence/reasonable force?
I’m not saying that self-defence doesn’t have a place in this discussion, street theft neither, but you don’t seem to wish to acknowledge or explore that there is any other psychology/culture/metric at play regarding aggressive/violent/abusive behaviours
why do people lie, steal, cheat or threaten people unless they hand over something they want.
The simple answer is because they can and there is no recourse.
That’s not ‘deeper’ It’s ‘a simple (sic) answer’ offered by you. And like most simple answers to complex and ongoing issues, it is probably lacking. And it’s one that might easily be proven if we were all fire-armed, baseball-bat carrying, and trained in weapon use. The great equaliser?
But ‘deep’? Not all all. Quite the opposite, tbh. Where are the most peaceful and safest countries in the world today? Give me say ten reasons why they are that way and then let’s go deeper?
Still strongly recommend you opening a separate thread about theft/assault and self defence/reasonable force
Well, reading some of the male contributions on this thread it is clear that men won't be sorting this issue out any time quick...
p7eaven
*This is what I’d encouraging you to do. Look deeper.
ie you seem to have sidestepped examining statistics for baseball bat crime (and my proffered ‘deeper meaning’ re examining male violence/‘righting wrongs’) in favour of your ongoing discussion about self-defence/reasonable force?
I’m not saying that self-defence doesn’t have a place in this discussion, street theft neither, but you don’t seem to wish to acknowledge or explore that there is any other psychology/culture/metric at play regarding aggressive/violent/abusive behaviours
It's not about self defence, it's about why people can get away with unreasonable and anti-social behaviour. However deeply you wish to think about it the main reason I'm not going to call out a bloke wolf whistling a female is that unless I'm prepared to go to court and face a criminal record there is absolutely nothing I can do. If my answer to him saying so what the F are you going to do about it is "I'll meekly walk away" all I'm doing is encouraging that behaviour.
From your answers on here then the thing most likely to prevent it escalating is also missing, that is 3-4 other people standing up.
If the bloke comes over and you say "I think you should apologise to the lady" what exactly are you going/willing to do? We already know the guy is a dick... he's in front of his mates ... do you think he'll apologise?
Well, reading some of the male contributions on this thread it is clear that men won’t be sorting this issue out any time quick…
Kinda difficult to sort something out when the law would put you in prison for sorting it out.
p7eaven
*This is what I’d encouraging you to do. Look deeper.
Or take littering ... it's all the same.
I usually pick up litter and put it into a trash can but I'm not sure its helping.
Those that drop it see me picking it up and have a good laugh. Do you suppose if I asked them nicely they'd pick up their own or do you think a bunch of 5-6 dicks are more likely to just get violent towards a single old looking bloke?
From your answers on here then the thing most likely to prevent it escalating is also missing, that is 3-4 other people standing up.
yet another strawman. I was being specific replying to your scenario about someone coming at me (unspecified reason, or size etc) with a baseball bat. It is generally not sensible to attempt to disarm someone with a baseball bat unless you are confident they can be immediately overwhelmed, and preferably from a distance. You didn’t seem willing to discuss the hypothesis/statistics about why and which people generally attack other people with baseball bats. You simply claimed it was ‘normally to get your phone/wallet’. Why would you make that claim?
Now you’re applying the same strawman to wolf-whistling.
I don’t generally reprimand strange men for wolf-whistling. If they seem like an aggressive sort, would you escalate that situation if the only thing they did was whistle? What would that achieve? I’d rather gauge/assess the situation first.
I might, on the other, hand call my friends out for it. Hypothetically. Never did when I was at school/a school-leaver. But there were lots of things we didn’t call out back then, more to our shame.
thing most likely to prevent it escalating is also missing, that is 3-4 other people standing up.
It’s a novel idea. ‘Man whistles at woman and gets cancelled by woke streetmob’
Did anyone watch BBC Big Question this morning?
One of the studio guests was Michael Conroy, founder of Men At Work
[Who we are. What we do.
Men At Work C.I.C. offers bespoke training & support for those working with Boys and Young Men.
We work with you to enhance your skills in supporting boys and young men to navigate their way towards safe, healthy and respectful adult lives.]
https://menatworkcic.org/
On The Big Questions he raised the issue of porn, and how it's now something kids of primary school age are exposed to (via smart phones).
You didn’t seem willing to discuss the hypothesis/statistics about why and which people generally attack other people with baseball bats. You simply claimed it was ‘normally to get your phone/wallet’. Why would you make that claim?
The main reason anyone attacks anyone is to get/do something they want or because you called them out over their anti-social behaviour which amount to the same thing. Whether its a baseball bat, tyre wrench, knife or whatever they have to hand is a bit irrelevant.
You can decide your own reasons ... or just ask them nicely.
I on the other hand will respond first and ask questions after either because I find asking about their childhood doesn't defuse the situation or more because I just don't care. Someone who attacks me especially with a weapon has just lost their right to empathy and given me a legal recourse if its on camera.
I've found out through experience that trying to reason with a nut job that wants something from you is pointless. I ended up with slashes to my arm for my trouble. (Amazingly < 200m from the same place I removed the youths from the bus if a year or so later)
He was willing to do this for a cigarette I refused to give him and it cost me a jacket and a shirt but ultimately I had something he wanted and refused to give it to him.
Ironically, had he not started out by threatening me I'd likely have offered to share it.
A lot to respond to there and in other posts. I’ll try and get time to answering your questions of/directed to me.
But Steve, just to clarify:
I on the other hand will respond first and ask questions after either because I find asking about their childhood doesn’t defuse the situation
When you write that (and other similar remarks) I can’t determine if or not you are
1. Attempting to be entertaining/facetious with patently ridiculous strawmen
2. Being directly facetious because you *really believe* anyone here has suggested such a response/tactic to an immediate/developing physical threat?
I'm not sure what this thread has descending into, but it appears it's no longer a discussion about men's violence against women. I guess that shouldn't surprise anyone because, after all this is a forum of (almost entirely) men chatting (mostly) about bikes.
There's a been a few comments here on how women being murdered by strangers is 'rare' and whilst these exact words haven't been used, the implication is that women are 'weaponising their trauma', a phrase commonly use elsewhere to dismiss womens' experiences and concerns.
This just popped up on my FB feed. This is what women have to put up with
^ So what’s the immediate solution response?
1. Film him?
2. Physically assault him/gather passers by to create a mob?
3. Ridicule him/verbally attack/shame him?
4. Run and call the cops?
5. Monitor/follow him while calling the cops?
Also, how common is this behaviour? Mrs P tells me that she was ‘flashed’ as a girl, but nothing was done/no crime reported as the parent felt that the man was ‘mentally fragile’
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. But it was the 1970s.
*Edit
More than 750,000 adults aged 16-74 were victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault in the year ending March 2020, according to the data published by the ONS. There were 618,000 female victims, four times as many as male.
According to the survey, 22.9% of women said they had experienced a sexual assault or attempted sexual assault since the age of 16, ranging from indecent exposure and unwanted touching to rape and assault by penetration.
“These latest figures confirm that the prevalence of sexual violence and abuse remains very high, that women are disproportionately impacted by these traumatic crimes, and that the majority of victims and survivors don’t feel confident to report to the police,” said Katie Russell, a national spokesperson for Rape Crisis England & Wales.
“While criminal justice outcomes remain so low and the majority of sexual offenders walk free after what can be a very long and sometimes retraumatising process, perhaps it is unsurprising that less than 20% of victims and survivors choose to report.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/mar/18/ons-survey-finds-one-in-14-women-have-been-victim-of
When you write that (and other similar remarks) I can’t determine if or not you are
1. Attempting to be entertaining/facetious with patently ridiculous strawmen
2. Being directly facetious because you *really believe* anyone here has suggested such a response/tactic to an immediate/developing physical threat?
I don't know a bit of both. I find it hard to express something that seems so clear to me.
As I said the solution is simple, we need to renormalize violence if the majority of men wish to do anything against harassment of women by strangers or other anti-social behaviour.
Most of us are not going to get involved as potentially saying something carries much higher sentencing than wolf whistling or selling drugs outside the school. (or our local complaint on the schools football ground pavilion)
Both these are to me the same, I'm not getting a criminal record for saying "excuse me that was inappropriate, I think you should apologise" or "could you sell your drugs elsewhere".
I'd also be very careful if I saw someone being mugged nowadays...with cameras everywhere and a convict the good Samaritan attitude it's not worth the risk of going to help someone.
The main reason anyone attacks anyone is to get/do something they want or because you called them out over their anti-social behaviour which amount to the same thing.
Where are you getting your figures from?
In the year ending March 2020 CSEW, the most common perpetrators of violent crime were acquaintances (43%, 528,000 offences), with 41% of offences (511,000) perpetrated by a stranger, and the remaining 16% (200,000 offences) categorised as domestic violence
You claim:
Whether its a baseball bat, tyre wrench, knife or whatever they have to hand is a bit irrelevant.
Strawman argument. I asked why your hypothetical baseball bat wielder was swinging for me. You made the claim that most incidents in which baseball bats are being used against people are (street?) theft incidents.
I challenged your claim. Details of incidents matter when assessing their cause. What if (hypothetically) most baseball bat incidents were by males and used in retribution to a real or perceived ‘wrong’ or ‘turf war’? Is your empathic response to someone being violently robbed by a stranger the same as your empathic response to someone taking a baseball bat to that same stranger for having violently robbed them?
No one here has suggested asking them about their childhood at the scene of the crime. So why do you respond as if they have?
I don’t know a bit of both. I find it hard to express something that seems so clear to me.
It’s not clear to me who or what you are responding to. Why use strawmen?
There’s a been a few comments here on how women being murdered by strangers is ‘rare’ and whilst these exact words haven’t been used, the implication is that women are ‘weaponising their trauma’, a phrase commonly use elsewhere to dismiss womens’ experiences and concerns.
Women being murdered by strangers is rare... but hey its acceptable to discuss unlike the majority of women being murdered. We can't talk about that though ... it's not acceptable debate as the most at risk by a long way are in minority groups (the police so politely put it as murders reported to the police) which doesn't happen when a daughter is murdered for an honour killing and the outside get told "oh she went and got married" so lets talk about something barely ever happens instead.
the implication is that women are ‘weaponising their trauma’
Back to exceptionalism... FFS men do it why shouldn't women?
Strawman argument. I asked why your hypothetical baseball bat wielder was swinging for me. You made the claim that most incidents in which baseball bats are being used against people are (street?) theft incidents.
No I said the reason people attack people is to get or do something they want.
What if (hypothetically) most baseball bat incidents were by males and used in retribution to a real or perceived ‘wrong’ or ‘turf war’?
That's what I just said ^ (other than your "perceived")... "to get or do something they want"
Though quite why you are fixated on a baseball bat is a mystery. It's just an example.
Is your empathic response to someone being robbed by a stranger the same as your empathic response to someone taking a baseball bat to that stranger?
Did they go out looking for a turf war? If so they have my support as they got what they were looking for.
With respect, you actually claimed:
The usual reason, you didn’t want to give them your phone and wallet.
You later added ‘to do something they want’. I’m not sure what that means.
I don’t know where you get your stats, I’m assuming you’re just guessing.
For the sake/respect of both this thread (not derailing it further) and your thoughtful input about a bigger picture (worth discussing) I’ve opened one about ‘normalising violence’
https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/normalising-violence-confidence-in-legal-system/
it’s not acceptable debate
Mate, it's all acceptable debate. What's not acceptable is loading your contributions with judgements. Do you actually understand that you are doing this?
Women being murdered by strangers is rare… but hey its acceptable to discuss unlike the majority of women being murdered. We can’t talk about that though …
Don’t see anything in TOS. Am assuming that you/we are discussing?
it’s not acceptable debate as the most at risk by a long way are in minority groups (the police so politely put it as murders reported to the police) which doesn’t happen when a daughter is murdered for an honour killing and the outside get told “oh she went and got married” so lets talk about something barely ever happens instead.
What are the stats for ‘honour killings’ in the UK? Again, where are you getting your stats/info! You never answer that!
In the year to March 2020, 207 women were killed in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales). This means about one in four killings were of women.
Most violent attacks are by people the victim knows - 92% in the case of women and 79% among men.
We don't have statistics which show what proportion of women were attacked by men or other women, but most people found guilty of violent crimes are men.
In 2019, about 85% of people sentenced in court for violent crime were men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-56365412
Mate, it’s all acceptable debate. What’s not acceptable is loading your contributions with judgements. Do you actually understand that you are doing this?
It's not acceptable though is it?
What are the stats for ‘honour killings’ in the UK? Again, where are you getting your stats/info! You never answer that!
There are no stats, as I quoted earlier the stats are only for crimes REPORTED to the police and many honour killings (and suspected ones) are not reported.
Where I'm getting information from is from a very old friend who spent a lot of time in womens refuges and through that met a lot of other women in the same position as her from the same sub-culture. For I hope obvious reasons I'm not going to mention her name or where she (and her son) are now.
It's not about pure numbers either ... what these women fear is straight out pre-meditated murder not simply violence or a semi "accidental". (Not that I'm suggesting the latter is acceptable) but you can add in botched backstreet abortions and FGM.
We don’t have statistics which show what proportion of women were attacked by men or other women, but most people found guilty of violent crimes are men.
Much as that is unsurprising it's also not completely representative in detail.
The definition of violent crime is different and the reporting is different and the conviction is different.
I have never in 52yrs reported a violent crime of any type but most specifically ones committed by women. I did briefly consider it when my son's mother tried to strangle me or when she hit me with a chair but she was quick to point out she "would tell the police I attacked her and who will they believe" and other than my son having to witness this no actual damage was done (other than a broken chair).
However either way, even when I've been stabbed I wouldn't risk reporting the crime as I then have to defend myself against a proportional response.
The point is it's like taking figures for bike crime. Unless a bike is insured why would anyone report it especially as you are then unable to reclaim the bike should you find it?
But anyway, to go back to your or the BBC's graph ... and taking all the vagaries above as a bit of noise it illustrates that women have little to fear in terms of violent crime from strangers of any gender and a lot to fear from people they already know and also within their household or ex partners.
This is actually what we should be focussing on not some incredibly rare incident of a serving police officer murdering a stranger.
Young men on the other hand face dangers outside the home though the graph doesn't illustrate this well as it has biased by including friend and acquaintance in the same category. This further biases the reporting as many men are going to avoid reporting or medical interventions that include automatic reporting to avoid being forced to defend their actions.
I wasn’t aware that ‘up to 80% of women held in Russian prisons for murder killed a domestic abuser in self-defence.’ There don’t seem to be any useful laws in place there to deal with domestic abuse and even those are being removed? wtf?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49318003
Russia's lower house of parliament, the Duma, has approved an amendment that removes domestic abuse from the criminal code.
Seem to remember someone saying earlier in the thread that ‘abuse is what you make it’? That sadly rings true here.