Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    would it be fair to say that there was no swift justice in that case?
    yep but the police are crap anyways (sumtimes)
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by *dave*)
    There are other laws however that could be seen as sexist however. For example, you cant indecently expose yourself to a man, only a woman.
    Actually the naturists (the people who know the most about the law surrounding public nudity) say different.

    The Common Law offence of indecent exposure is somewhat different This is an indecency offence, not sexual. It can be committed by either sex * and no intent is necessary. Unfortunately I don`t know what indecency means - and neither does the Law - so a decision as to what is indecent is usually left to a Magistrate or a Jury. This offence is of a minor nature and could be used to prosecute a 'flasher' where the necessary intent cannot be proved.
    *their italics not mine
    http://www.difference-engine.co.uk/l.../nude_law.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xAngelx)
    yep but the police are crap anyways (sumtimes)
    Isn't that the damn truth. Example: I was doing the close shift at maccas a few weeks ago when 8-10 little black kids showed up and began harrassing my crew, even though the doors were locked. As soon as I heard the first thud of hand on glass I stopped counting the days takings and called the police. Ten minutes later with 4 scared teenaged boys asking me what to do, the black kids smashed the glass on one of the front doors. I went out and erm urged them to leave, and finally 5 minutes after that the police turn up. 15 full minutes, on an emergency line. That is seriously sad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Actually the naturists (the people who know the most about the law surrounding public nudity) say different.


    *their italics not mine
    http://www.difference-engine.co.uk/l.../nude_law.html
    You forgot to put this bit in:

    The basis of the statutory offence is that a male 'exposes his person ('legalese' for penis) with intent to insult a female'. It is a `sexual offence`, that is, there must be a sexual motive to it. For a prosecution to succeed it would be expected that the penis in question should be erect. It cannot be committed by a female although the victim must be of that sex and it must be a deliberate act. The female must also be offended by the behaviour!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Isn't that the damn truth. Example: I was doing the close shift at maccas a few weeks ago when 8-10 little black kids showed up and began harrassing my crew, even though the doors were locked. As soon as I heard the first thud of hand on glass I stopped counting the days takings and called the police. Ten minutes later with 4 scared teenaged boys asking me what to do, the black kids smashed the glass on one of the front doors. I went out and erm urged them to leave, and finally 5 minutes after that the police turn up. 15 full minutes, on an emergency line. That is seriously sad.
    i know what you mean, these 3 townies came up to us and started just cos we are alternative and asked us questions and if we didn't answer they'd slap us, anyways she called me a blonde bimbo, i said i'm proud, and she thort i was getting cocky HA, so we had a fight, i went to the police, and a few minutes later all the 3 townies started on this girl who was on her own reading a book, and the bad thing is the police saw it, but oh noooo whould they do out of course not, and one of them had the cheek to threaten my mate damn PIGS hahaha
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by *dave*)
    You forgot to put this bit in:

    The basis of the statutory offence is that a male 'exposes his person ('legalese' for penis) with intent to insult a female'. It is a `sexual offence`, that is, there must be a sexual motive to it. For a prosecution to succeed it would be expected that the penis in question should be erect. It cannot be committed by a female although the victim must be of that sex and it must be a deliberate act. The female must also be offended by the behaviour!
    In this case although the wording of the law is in theory biased the enforcement is most definately not (for example there was a lady at this years glastonbury who got a little bit :ahem: carried away near one of the stages - she was arrested for indecent exposure).

    And if it makes you feel better the new sexual offences bill will remove this bias altogether:

    http://www.parliament.the-stationery...t/30519-19.htm
    (the initial draft listed indecent exposure as only when the penis is exposed (presumable for fear of topless sunbathers arrested scandals in the scum) - the amendment changed it to genitals so it applies to both genders (although still not to breasts - there are laws about disturbing thre peace which would cover flashing of boobs but allow police the flexibility not to arrest half of bournemouth beach))
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    It IS a generally accepted truth that women get custody of children unless there is something wrong with the mother. I think Its about 8% (say otherwise if Im wrong) of custody cases are won by the father.
    The current trend of male and female earning differences is because many employers are worried about giving high profile jobs to women. This is due to potential maternity leave payments and the complications that maternity leave brings.
    And another thing that backs my point, I think paternity leave currently stands at 2 weeks, and for a woman is it about 18 weeks or sumthing like that?
    It ISNT generally accepted because a lot of people dont agree with you. Dont be so utterly arrogant as to assume that your views must represent the majority. There are of course also secondary issues relating to the custody points, such as the question of whether one sex is automatically better atdealing with children in general and at certain ages, ie would it be sensible to generally prefer a father for an older boy who might be seen to need more discipline or a mother in the case of young toddlers for example? Which is more dispensible, mother of father? These are all important aspects of the discussion.
    The trend which has ever been with us of women being paid less is due more to an entrenched glass ceiling then anything else. Women constantly have to deal with the assumption that they will automatically go off and breed as soon as they are able. By extension, this lack of legal protection for women also slurs fathers- by assuming that a mother will be less effective then other workers because the job wont be her first concern, it assumes that the role of the father is less important. An example of how discrimination against women harms us all. The lack of legal protection for women here is one of the most pervasivs examples of sexism found in society.
    I for one welcomed the introducion of paternity leave- it got rid of one of the very few examples of sexism men face in society, and as such is a good thing, helping us all. A woman who has just given birth however needs a damned sight more physical recovery time then a father who hasnt, which is one reason for the discrepancy. But don't worry, when maternity leave was introduced it was for a shorter time then now, the newness of the policy means the government needs to tread carefully. It will increase soon, and I think this will benefit us all. There are groups pushing for an increase that you could get involved in.
    However, the fact remains that any suggestion that men enjoy less protection by law is ridiculous. Pencil Queen was right in her assessment of the domestic violence situation, and frankly I think the fact that the majority of adult domestic violence victims are female illustrates a long term lack of leagl protection for women. I take it you dont have any views on my point about rape and women who are murdered by male partners?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    It ISNT generally accepted because a lot of people dont agree with you. Dont be so utterly arrogant as to assume that your views must represent the majority. There are of course also secondary issues relating to the custody points, such as the question of whether one sex is automatically better atdealing with children in general and at certain ages, ie would it be sensible to generally prefer a father for an older boy who might be seen to need more discipline or a mother in the case of young toddlers for example? Which is more dispensible, mother of father? These are all important aspects of the discussion.
    The trend which has ever been with us of women being paid less is due more to an entrenched glass ceiling then anything else. Women constantly have to deal with the assumption that they will automatically go off and breed as soon as they are able. By extension, this lack of legal protection for women also slurs fathers- by assuming that a mother will be less effective then other workers because the job wont be her first concern, it assumes that the role of the father is less important. An example of how discrimination against women harms us all. The lack of legal protection for women here is one of the most pervasivs examples of sexism found in society.
    I for one welcomed the introducion of paternity leave- it got rid of one of the very few examples of sexism men face in society, and as such is a good thing, helping us all. A woman who has just given birth however needs a damned sight more physical recovery time then a father who hasnt, which is one reason for the discrepancy. But don't worry, when maternity leave was introduced it was for a shorter time then now, the newness of the policy means the government needs to tread carefully. It will increase soon, and I think this will benefit us all. There are groups pushing for an increase that you could get involved in.
    However, the fact remains that any suggestion that men enjoy less protection by law is ridiculous. Pencil Queen was right in her assessment of the domestic violence situation, and frankly I think the fact that the majority of adult domestic violence victims are female illustrates a long term lack of leagl protection for women. I take it you dont have any views on my point about rape and women who are murdered by male partners?

    1. I am not arogant, Im just stating a common general assumption. If you dont believe me then you are just kidding yourself.

    2. 'Women constantly have to deal with the assumption that they will automatically go off and breed as soon as they are able' because on the whole they do. If you were an employer you would understand that you would try as best as you can to not spend money on things that you could practically do without doing (i.e. spending thousands on maternity leave for a woman who isn't even working for you).

    3. However, assumption 2 does 'slur' fathers, but because on the whole women are more involved in childcare - its the way that it is ... its not sexism.

    4. Im not a campaigner for paternity leave lol. I was just using it as an example to back up my point that there are many areas of the law that favour women.

    5. Are you sure that domestic violence affects more males than females? The fact that it is socially more acceptable for a woman to go to the police after being abused may mean that womens figures are higher, rather than it is actually a fact.

    6. You ask me of my viewpoint about legal protection of those who have been raped and murdered by male partners. Tell me where there should be more protection! The law is incredibly tough on rapists and murderers. What else can be done to stop people being raped and murdered, whatever their gender? In fact, many mens lives have been ruined by eventually proven false alegations of rape, as the police take it so seriously. You can't exactly video camera every single person in the world to monitor crime.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    1. I am not arogant, Im just stating a common general assumption. If you dont believe me then you are just kidding yourself.
    2. 'Women constantly have to deal with the assumption that they will automatically go off and breed as soon as they are able' because on the whole they do. If you were an employer you would understand that you would try as best as you can to not spend money on things that you could practically do without doing (i.e. spending thousands on maternity leave for a woman who isn't even working for you).
    3. However, assumption 2 does 'slur' fathers, but because on the whole women are more involved in childcare - its the way that it is ... its not sexism.
    4. Im not a campaigner for paternity leave lol. I was just using it as an example to back up my point that there are many areas of the law that favour women.
    5. Are you sure that domestic violence affects more males than females? The fact that it is socially more acceptable for a woman to go to the police after being abused may mean that womens figures are higher, rather than it is actually a fact.
    6. You ask me of my viewpoint about legal protection of those who have been raped and murdered by male partners. Tell me where there should be more protection! The law is incredibly tough on rapists and murderers. What else can be done to stop people being raped and murdered, whatever their gender? In fact, many mens lives have been ruined by eventually proven false alegations of rape, as the police take it so seriously. You can't exactly video camera every single person in the world to monitor crime.
    OK, point by point for you (like the numbering!)
    1. You're still making a random assertion without showing me any evidence here. Until you do, your view here isnt going to hold water. You could do a search for the last thread we had discussing this if you like, I think it was about 2 months ago, but I dont know who started it I'm afraid. I find it extremely arrogant to assume most people agree with you unless you've got proof, and you haven't yet shown me any of that so...
    2. Well I think you just proved my point about sexist assumptions (and I note you didnt say anything about the glass ceiling). One question though- could this breeding point not apply equally to men, especially since I think there seems to be a trend for men to be more involved with parenting then perhaps there used to be?
    3. I'm glad you agree that it does slur fathers here- I mean if I was a man, I think I'd be quite offended at the suggestion that the mother of my children will automatically be the primary carer, and that I couldnt do it myself. This is becoming especially outdated since the numbers of stay at home dads are on the increase. If more men do start staying at home, that could well have an impact on the paternity leave issue as well.
    4. ok, but its hardly proof that women get more protection in the eyes of the law which was your original suggestion.
    5. Yes I am, though actually its interesting that you make that point because the numbers of male victims are going up. Obviously they are still dwarfed by the female figures but that doesnt mean it isnt disturbing I'm sure you will agree. Another example of how the lack of legal protection for women often ends up making things bad for men too. The point you made about it not being socially acceptable to the police actually applies to women too- I would think pretty much all the victims of domestic violence feel a sense of shame, I have heard thats a typical response.
    6. The law is incredibly tough on rapists and murderers?! Are you for real? Have you any idea how low the conviction rate is for rapists? Look it up and then you'll see that this is certainly an area where more legal protection is needed. As with the domestic violence point, while its true that women are more likely to be the victims, male rape isnt unknown and neither is the sexual abuse of boys, and so helping women here would also help men. I would have thought you'd be in favour because of that- isnt helping the men who have been victims of rape more important then defending a system which barely catches any of those who perpetrate it?
    In the end, you still havent shown that women get more legal protection then men. Because they dont.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    OK, point by point for you (like the numbering!)
    1. You're still making a random assertion without showing me any evidence here. Until you do, your view here isnt going to hold water. You could do a search for the last thread we had discussing this if you like, I think it was about 2 months ago, but I dont know who started it I'm afraid. I find it extremely arrogant to assume most people agree with you unless you've got proof, and you haven't yet shown me any of that so...
    3. I'm glad you agree that it does slur fathers here- I mean if I was a man, I think I'd be quite offended at the suggestion that the mother of my children will automatically be the primary carer, and that I couldnt do it myself. This is becoming especially outdated since the numbers of stay at home dads are on the increase. If more men do start staying at home, that could well have an impact on the paternity leave issue as well.
    5. Yes I am, though actually its interesting that you make that point because the numbers of male victims are going up. Obviously they are still dwarfed by the female figures but that doesnt mean it isnt disturbing I'm sure you will agree. Another example of how the lack of legal protection for women often ends up making things bad for men too. The point you made about it not being socially acceptable to the police actually applies to women too- I would think pretty much all the victims of domestic violence feel a sense of shame, I have heard thats a typical response.
    6. The law is incredibly tough on rapists and murderers?! Are you for real? Have you any idea how low the conviction rate is for rapists? Look it up and then you'll see that this is certainly an area where more legal protection is needed. As with the domestic violence point, while its true that women are more likely to be the victims, male rape isnt unknown and neither is the sexual abuse of boys, and so helping women here would also help men. I would have thought you'd be in favour because of that- isnt helping the men who have been victims of rape more important then defending a system which barely catches any of those who perpetrate it?
    In the end, you still havent shown that women get more legal protection then men. Because they dont.
    1) im agreeing with him and that makes 2:1
    3)id just like to make some points. The highly successful city earner and the stay at home parent separated, who got to keep the kids. The highly successful city owner, thats right, she got to keep the kids because the FEMALE judge said that as a woman she was better suited for motherhood and caring as opposed to the parernt that stayed at home for 5 years.
    6) I know several blokes that have been accused of rape after leaving their girlfriends or threatened with it, its often a form of sexual harassment by women in an attempt to get their own back. This is SOME not all cases
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lala)
    OK, point by point for you (like the numbering!)
    1. You're still making a random assertion without showing me any evidence here. Until you do, your view here isnt going to hold water. You could do a search for the last thread we had discussing this if you like, I think it was about 2 months ago, but I dont know who started it I'm afraid. I find it extremely arrogant to assume most people agree with you unless you've got proof, and you haven't yet shown me any of that so...
    2. Well I think you just proved my point about sexist assumptions (and I note you didnt say anything about the glass ceiling). One question though- could this breeding point not apply equally to men, especially since I think there seems to be a trend for men to be more involved with parenting then perhaps there used to be?
    3. I'm glad you agree that it does slur fathers here- I mean if I was a man, I think I'd be quite offended at the suggestion that the mother of my children will automatically be the primary carer, and that I couldnt do it myself. This is becoming especially outdated since the numbers of stay at home dads are on the increase. If more men do start staying at home, that could well have an impact on the paternity leave issue as well.
    4. ok, but its hardly proof that women get more protection in the eyes of the law which was your original suggestion.
    5. Yes I am, though actually its interesting that you make that point because the numbers of male victims are going up. Obviously they are still dwarfed by the female figures but that doesnt mean it isnt disturbing I'm sure you will agree. Another example of how the lack of legal protection for women often ends up making things bad for men too. The point you made about it not being socially acceptable to the police actually applies to women too- I would think pretty much all the victims of domestic violence feel a sense of shame, I have heard thats a typical response.
    6. The law is incredibly tough on rapists and murderers?! Are you for real? Have you any idea how low the conviction rate is for rapists? Look it up and then you'll see that this is certainly an area where more legal protection is needed. As with the domestic violence point, while its true that women are more likely to be the victims, male rape isnt unknown and neither is the sexual abuse of boys, and so helping women here would also help men. I would have thought you'd be in favour because of that- isnt helping the men who have been victims of rape more important then defending a system which barely catches any of those who perpetrate it?
    In the end, you still havent shown that women get more legal protection then men. Because they dont.
    The conviction rate for rapists ??? Are you questioning the judiciary now?

    Many women accuse their ex-partners of raping them as a means of 'getting back at them' for a variety of reasons. This may well be why the conviction rate is so low ... as rape can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in nearly all cases - for obvious reasons ... unless the woman washes afterwards which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JSM)
    1) im agreeing with him and that makes 2:1
    3)id just like to make some points. The highly successful city earner and the stay at home parent separated, who got to keep the kids. The highly successful city owner, thats right, she got to keep the kids because the FEMALE judge said that as a woman she was better suited for motherhood and caring as opposed to the parernt that stayed at home for 5 years.
    6) I know several blokes that have been accused of rape after leaving their girlfriends or threatened with it, its often a form of sexual harassment by women in an attempt to get their own back. This is SOME not all cases
    I never said nobody would agree with him, merely that he hasn't provided any evidence to prove his point. I have been very careful not to state whether I myself do, but he has not yet shown us that the majority do. I'm actually not sure how this could be proven anyway tbh but then I guess providing the evidence there isnt my problem.

    If you're trying to imply that the gender of a judge will bias them (and you may well have a point) then women are buggered arent we? The vast majority of judges are male, including all the law lords, which might well be one reason for the lack of legal protection afforded to women in so many areas. Stating an example of one case proves nothing- I know a couple who were given joint custody (by a male judge, since we're stating gender now) despite the father being a violent alcoholic. But I'm not presenting that as being conclusive as you seem to be with your single isolated example- one case alone is insufficient to base a conclusion upon.
    The same principle applies with rape. If I were using only the examples of people I personally know then I would have still come to the conclusion that the odds are stacked against getting a conviction- I know people who have been told basically not to bother because of lack of evidence, and one whose case was I think dismissed. I also know one bloke who was raped, having been drugged. Whereas I don't know anyone who has been fasely accused, and let us not forget that we are much less likely to hear of a rape victim because so many keep quite due to shame, while by the very nature of false accusations lots of people know about them. However, I know better then to base my views on just cases I'm personally aware of. So I looked at the figures for rape convictions as a whole. They are very low indeed. I cant help wondering if they would be so low were it to be women who rape men rather than vice versa.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    The conviction rate for rapists ??? Are you questioning the judiciary now?

    Many women accuse their ex-partners of raping them as a means of 'getting back at them' for a variety of reasons. This may well be why the conviction rate is so low ... as rape can be proven beyond reasonable doubt in nearly all cases - for obvious reasons ... unless the woman washes afterwards which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the law.
    How do you mean by questioning? I havent actually suggested why the rate for rape convictions is so low, just pointed out that the fact that it is kind of suggests that it is not men whom the odds are stacked against and who are afforded less legal protection.
    Please please dont tell me you think that the reason for the low number of convictions is because the women are making it up?! If you are, and I'm not sure because its not clear, then thats one of the most offensive and sexist things I have ever see.
    I note by the way that you exempt men who bring rape claims from the suggestion that many victims are lying. I think that says it all really.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.