Also in the news

[nnfox]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree with the need for discussion, but with respect I'm still looking for an answer to the question I asked.

I don't really know how to answer 

 

People come into discussions from different angles.  How one responds is a matter for the individual.  I suspect sticking to known facts and not offering baseless opinions would be a good start. 

[nnfox]

21 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Not sure I agree as per sentencing guidelines 

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/aggravating-and-mitigating-factors/

 

Provocation is listed as a mitigating factor which can be taken into account to discount against the standard tariff that applies which to me indicates a recognition that the actions of another may have contributed to the commission of an offence whilst not providing a defence for it 

Ok, you got me.  Mitigating circumstances based on the victim's actions are in a small minority though and the offender is still 100% responsible for the crime occuring.

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I don't really know how to answer 

 

People come into discussions from different angles.  How one responds is a matter for the individual.  I suspect sticking to known facts and not offering baseless opinions would be a good start. 

That's fair enough - especially the opinion as fact part.

 

My own considered opinion is that there's precious little difference between saying what someone could have done differently when a bad situation has arisen and implying that they did something wrong to bring it about, otherwise why go for the "constructive" approach of analysing it in the first place? But yeah, that's just my take.

[Mike Oxlong]

22 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Ok, you got me.  Mitigating circumstances based on the victim's actions are in a small minority though and the offender is still 100% responsible for the crime occuring.

I’m don’t believe that is the way that the law presently looks at it when an offender can get a sentencing discount due to the actions of the victim. The “victim” is exactly still that because their actions do not provide a defence but nonetheless the actions of the victim are deemed to be a contributory factor in the commission of the offence, ergo, the perpetrator is not 100% responsible 

 

I accept the small minority point but posted as I did because you seemed to be speaking in absolute terms. 

 

The classic provocation discount is where someone gets glassed after starting the fight. Perhaps having lost an eye even though they themselves committed the initial assault they won’t get prosecuted even though they may have initiated events but that will be reflected  by a discounted sentence. But for the initial assault the glassing would not have happened - the offender is not 100% responsible when looking at the circumstances holistically. 

Edited 13 March 2021 by Mike Oxlong

[Mike Oxlong]

Double post 

Edited 13 March 2021 by Mike Oxlong

[nnfox]

6 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

I’m don’t believe that is the way that the law presently looks at it when an offender can get a sentencing discount due to the actions of the victim. The “victim” is exactly still that because their actions do not provide a defence but nonetheless the actions of the victim are deemed to be a contributory factor in the commission of the offence, ergo, the perpetrator is not 100% responsible 

 

I accept the small minority point but posted as I did because you seemed to be speaking in absolute terms. 

 

The classic provocation discount is where someone gets glassed after starting the fight. Perhaps having lost an eye even though they themselves committed the initial assault they won’t get prosecuted even though they may have initiated events but that will be reflected  by a discounted sentence. But for the initial assault the glassing would not have happened - the offender is not 100% responsible when looking at the circumstances holistically. 

Yes and no.  I understand your point but in your example, the offender has a choice to make - commit a criminal act by retaliating or run away.  If there is no option to run away and the 'offender' has to fight with or without a glass as a weapon (depending on the precise circumstances) then they would raise a defence of self-defence which is a totally different matter.

 

We're getting into granular detail here.  Suffice to say, each case should be judged on the presented evidence.  The sentencing guidelines come into play after the defendant has been found guilty.

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

I honestly haven't seen or heard anyone blame the victim.  There is a distinction to be made between commenting on the circumstances of a crime and actually say that it is the victim's fault.  The term 'victim blaming' is actually damaging to the safety of people.

 

For a crime to happen, there needs to be a combination of three things.  All three must be present.

 

1. A victim (it can NEVER be the victim's fault that they are the victim of a crime).

2. An offender (it is ALWAYS the offenders fault a crime occurs because by definition they have to carry out a criminal act on purpose, or in cases of negligence, don't do something that they should have)

3. An opportunity (this is where it gets complicated)

 

The opportunity for a crime is usually created by a mix of actions taken by both victim and offender.  Sometimes the victim acts in a seriously reckless way and the offender has to do very little to 'take advantage' of the opportunity.  Sometimes the victim does everying they reasonably can to protect themselves from crime but a determined offender might plan for weeks or months to engineer an opportunity.  

 

The thing is, there can be valuable lessons to be learned from discussing the actions of the victim as it may prevent someone else from becoming a victim.  Instead there seems to be a growing narrative in society that commenting on the actions of a victim is the same as blaming the victim for their own demise and the conversation is shut down immediately.  

 

Until we live in the utopia where everybody respects everything and everybody else and conducts themselves in a way that is kind, inoffensive and considerate to others, we have to deal with reality.  The reality is we need to look out for each other and figure out ways to stay safe and if hearing about how the opportunity for a crime (any crime) arose then if one or two people take those lessons on board and don't become victims, then that can be a positive outcome.

 

 

I just don't think the actions of the victim are in any way useful to be discussed so immediately after something like this. 

 

Whether the victim made it easier for the offender because they weren't in full kevlar or travelling down the street on a segway, the very real issue is why are these people doing this to innocent men and women? The more it happens the more people fear for their safety and then yes, common sense is that people ought to protect themselves but they are being let down if its all on them to do. I don't see what discussing victims actions really achieves.

[Mike Oxlong]

19 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Yes and no.  I understand your point but in your example, the offender has a choice to make - commit a criminal act by retaliating or run away.  If there is no option to run away and the 'offender' has to fight with or without a glass as a weapon (depending on the precise circumstances) then they would raise a defence of self-defence which is a totally different matter.

 

We're getting into granular detail here.  Suffice to say, each case should be judged on the presented evidence.  The sentencing guidelines come into play after the defendant has been found guilty.

Retaliation itself may be a defence if only reasonable force is applied to the existing circumstances. So the guilty party doesn’t have to run away and can use force so long as it is proportionate.

 

If the offender was always “100%” responsible for the offence how do you account for a sentencing variable that explicitly takes account of the behaviour of the victim ? 

 

Nor is it a matter of semantics. These principles apply in real life and as I said before I only got involved because you were posting in such absolute terms. It’s clear that you have a knowledge that is greater than the man in the street and I wondered if you were studying a related subject but with regard to the point in question matters are not quite as you initially asserted. 

 

As for discussing victims actions I think you referred to that earlier when saying that a victim can NEVER be at fault 

Edited 13 March 2021 by Mike Oxlong

[nnfox]

2 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Retaliation itself may be a defence if only reasonable force is applied to the existing circumstances. So the guilty party doesn’t have to run away and can use force so long as it is proportionate.

 

If the offender was always “100%” responsible for the offence how do you account for a sentencing variable that explicitly takes account of the behaviour of the victim ? 

 

Nor is it a matter of semantics. These principles apply in real life and as I said before I only got involved because you were posting in such absolute terms. It’s clear that you have a knowledge that is greater than the man in the street and I wondered if you were studying a related subject but with regard to the point in question matters are not quite as you initially asserted. 

The retaliation that you have described would amount to reasonable defence for their actions.  Not strictly a mitigating circumstance at the point of trial.  If the CPS authorised a charge, the defendant would get to court as an innocent man or woman and plead not guilty to the crime on the grounds of self defence. 

 

The defendant is either guilty of the offence and has been judged to have performed a criminal act without reasonable excuse, or they are not guilty.  There's no 'quite guilty' or 'guilty but a bit innocent'.  The court is there to decide if the act amounted to a crime or not.  Yes or no. 

 

If found guilty, instead of there being a common consistent sentence for the crime based on what the crime was, there is a systematic way of applying a reasonable scale to reflect the seriousness of the crime. It is at that point the judge might say that the actions of the defendant were criminal and they are wholly responsible for the crime, however, in passing sentence it is acknowledged that they were seriously provoked and this will be taken into consideration and the sentence shall be less than if it was unprovoked.

[Mike Oxlong]

2 minutes ago, nnfox said:

The retaliation that you have described would amount to reasonable defence for their actions.  Not strictly a mitigating circumstance at the point of trial.  If the CPS authorised a charge, the defendant would get to court as an innocent man or woman and plead not guilty to the crime on the grounds of self defence. 

 

The defendant is either guilty of the offence and has been judged to have performed a criminal act without reasonable excuse, or they are not guilty.  There's no 'quite guilty' or 'guilty but a bit innocent'.  The court is there to decide if the act amounted to a crime or not.  Yes or no. 

 

If found guilty, instead of there being a common consistent sentence for the crime based on what the crime was, there is a systematic way of applying a reasonable scale to reflect the seriousness of the crime. It is at that point the judge might say that the actions of the defendant were criminal and they are wholly responsible for the crime, however, in passing sentence it is acknowledged that they were seriously provoked and this will be taken into consideration and the sentence shall be less than if it was unprovoked.

Not sure what you mean 

 

The retaliation described earlier is the glassing to an initial assault which could be a push or a slap. In no way is glassing someone in such circumstances self defence 

 

Of course guilt is guilt and there are shades to the culpability for it depending on the specific circumstances 

 

I don’t know whether you stand by your original claim that a victim can NEVER be at fault. If you do you’re wrong but I think you actually understand that so I’m not quite sure to what end this dialogue is continuing. And if you don’t accept the point, fair enough. There’s no point me repeating myself. 

[nnfox]

16 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Not sure what you mean 

 

The retaliation described earlier is the glassing to an initial assault which could be a push or a slap. In no way is glassing someone in such circumstances self defence 

 

Of course guilt is guilt and there are shades to the culpability for it depending on the specific circumstances 

 

I don’t know whether you stand by your original claim that a victim can NEVER be at fault. If you do you’re wrong but I think you actually understand that so I’m not quite sure to what end this dialogue is continuing. And if you don’t accept the point, fair enough. There’s no point me repeating myself. 

So it's not a proportionate response then and therefore unlawful and amounts to a criminal act. 

 

If our defendant was stood at a crowded bar with one arm around his partner and the other hand holding a glass then there might be a defence of instant arming if they were in genuine fear of receiving further violence and swinging their free arm was the only way out of the situation and they didn't have time to put the glass down.  On the other hand, if our defendant received a slap and then reached across three people to grab a glass then that's different.  Totally disproportionate and therefore very difficult to claim self defence.

 

I will say that in some rare cases, it might be possible for a victim to trick an offender into commiting a crime but we're getting way, way off topic.

 

At the root of criminal law, for a crime to have been perpetrated, a person (the offender) must have performed a criminal act with knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.  Actus reus and mens rea.  It's their actions that are judged.

 

Not all crimes are clear cut, I get that absolutely, and that's why we have a justice system, but if the case gets to the point where the defendant is found guilty of an offence in a court of law that is on them, not on the victim.

 

With respect, we may have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm off now to become a temporary Burnley fan.

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, nnfox said:

So it's not a proportionate response then and therefore unlawful and amounts to a criminal act. 

 

If our defendant was stood at a crowded bar with one arm around his partner and the other hand holding a glass then there might be a defence of instant arming if they were in genuine fear of receiving further violence and swinging their free arm was the only way out of the situation and they didn't have time to put the glass down.  On the other hand, if our defendant received a slap and then reached across three people to grab a glass then that's different.  Totally disproportionate and therefore very difficult to claim self defence.

 

I will say that in some rare cases, it might be possible for a victim to trick an offender into commiting a crime but we're getting way, way off topic.

 

At the root of criminal law, for a crime to have been perpetrated, a person (the offender) must have performed a criminal act with knowledge that what they were doing was wrong.  Actus reus and mens rea.  It's their actions that are judged.

 

Not all crimes are clear cut, I get that absolutely, and that's why we have a justice system, but if the case gets to the point where the defendant is found guilty of an offence in a court of law that is on them, not on the victim.

 

With respect, we may have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm off now to become a temporary Burnley fan.

Ok. We disagree. 

 

Enjoy the game 

[FoxesDeb]

9 hours ago, Buce said:

 

El Chorro gorge is probably one of the most spectacular natural sights in the whole region, particularly if you have a head for heights as it can be reached by the Camino del Rey (King's path), a metre wide walkway bolted to the side of the gorge:

 

 

For scenery you are spoilt for choice, but the National Parks are all wonderful: Sierra Nevada National Park (nearest to you), Sierra de Andújar, Sierra de Hornachuelos spring to mind.

 

 

There are too many to list, but a quick Google of Moorish/Roman/Phonecian ruins will throw up dozens. The 'White' villages (pueblos blancos) in the area around Ronda (itself well worth a visit, preferably outside of the tourist season) are magnificent: off the top of my head, Arcos de la Frontera, Grazalema, Zahara de la Sierra, Ronda, and Setenil de las Bodegas are probably the best exmples.

 

 

I hear what you're saying about cities (I largely feel the same) but I strongly recommend making Granada and Cordoba an exception. The old parts of both cities are the best examples of Moorish architecture you'll find anywhere. Plenty of authentic tapas bars too.

 

Give me a day or so to find my journals and I'll give you more, though my focus has always been on hiking trails which may not be of much interest to you.

That's invaluable, thank you. I'm looking forward to hearing more, feel free to DM me if you prefer, to save derailing the thread if nothing else 

[FoxesDeb]

Anyone who thinks that cat calling is not sexual harassment is plain wrong imo. The very definition of harassment is something which the person on the receiving end may feel offended by, or uncomfortable with. The only thing which can be opinion is whether or not the person on the receiving end actually feels offended, but whether they do or not, it is still sexual harassment.

 

From Wiki: Street harassment is a form of harassment, primarily sexual harassment that consists of unwanted flirtatious comments (also known as catcalling) 

Edited 13 March 2021 by FoxesDeb

[StanSP]

Just seen some videos of the Police breaking up people peacefully protesting with far more force than required. They clearly don't see the irony and I can't make sense of their actions.

[Strokes]

On 12/03/2021 at 14:48, urban.spaceman said:

Davina's not made herself popular...

 

 

 

How do they know it’s always men doing this?

I thought a person’s genitalia didn’t determine their gender 

[Facecloth]

Why were the post questioning what was harassment and what wasn't deleted? All this is about educating men, and making them see what we do that can make women feel threatened. I've certainly leant a couple things over the last few days, as man who would never even imagine attacking anyone in the street, it never crossed my mind that not crossing the road might make a woman uncomfortable.

 

So here's a couple of posters disagreeing that catcalling and wolf whistling are harrasment and make some women feel threatened and uncomfortable, and rather than take the opportunity to engage and educate, a mod has decided to remove them or someone felt fit to report.

Edited 13 March 2021 by Facecloth

[Sly]

As tragic as this is. 
 

People disappear every day. What made the media pick up on this initially?
 

More to this? Did they have inside info but couldn’t release information? 

 

Why are some calling for a curfew on men? Some people have spent to long in lockdown and need to leave the house. 
 

 

 

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, Sly said:

As tragic as this is. 
 

People disappear every day. What made the media pick up on this initially?
 

More to this? Did they have inside info but couldn’t release information? 

 

Why are some calling for a curfew on men? Some people have spent to long in lockdown and need to leave the house. 
 

 

 

Possibly when it came to light that it was unexpected for this lady to go missing, and how it spread through social media that she had - covering a vast area in to London from Kent.

 

Of course people disappear every day, but often those people have a history of it and are found/come home within a few days (granted, a generalisation, it may not be 'often'). 

 

Who knows if they had information - only they will know that and we might never find that out specifically. But it picked up no doubt when it was revealed a policeman was being looked for...

 

The curfew for men is fvcking stupid and doesn't solve the issue. I'd imagine it's a vocal minority calling for that and no-one really wants that. 

[Facecloth]

11 minutes ago, Sly said:

As tragic as this is. 
 

People disappear every day. What made the media pick up on this initially?
 

More to this? Did they have inside info but couldn’t release information? 

 

Why are some calling for a curfew on men? Some people have spent to long in lockdown and need to leave the house. 
 

 

 

Possibly because of this

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

 

Add that it's in London/South East. After that obviously the suspect has increased the media attention.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

16 minutes ago, Sly said:

As tragic as this is. 
 

People disappear every day. What made the media pick up on this initially?
 

More to this? Did they have inside info but couldn’t release information? 

 

Why are some calling for a curfew on men? Some people have spent to long in lockdown and need to leave the house. 
 

 

 

It's pretty interesting why certain cases garner the interest they do and some go by without people so much as batting an eyelid.

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, Sly said:

As tragic as this is. 
 

People disappear every day. What made the media pick up on this initially?
 

More to this? Did they have inside info but couldn’t release information? 

 

Why are some calling for a curfew on men? Some people have spent to long in lockdown and need to leave the house. 
 

 

 

Crimes of this kind are thankfully very rare. People don’t just vanish from the streets while walking home. So when it does happen, it garners attention.

 

Judging from what has been said by people who attended this morning’s court appearance, there are some very shocking and disturbing details about this case yet to emerge.

 

The call for a curfew on men is a reaction to the horror, fear, frustration and despair that women feel about this crime. Obviously there is not going to be a curfew on men, but it's not hard to understand why some women are demanding it given the nature of this crime.

[Otis]

So men leaving the house after 6pm will be breaking the law,

 

Yeah that will stop those law-abiding murderers.

[peach0000]

33 minutes ago, Sly said:

As tragic as this is. 
 

People disappear every day. What made the media pick up on this initially?
 

More to this? Did they have inside info but couldn’t release information? 

 

Why are some calling for a curfew on men? Some people have spent to long in lockdown and need to leave the house. 
 

 

 

It had a pretty normal amount of media coverage until a police officer was arrested in connection to it. Then it really became a big story. I think there is something the public finds particularly sinister about a police office doing this. They are supposed to be there to protect and be people who can be relied on. I think that’s probably why this particular case has got so much attention.

[The whole world smiles]

Just now, peach0000 said:

It had a pretty normal amount of media coverage until a police officer was arrested in connection to it. Then it really became a big story. I think there is something the public finds particularly sinister about a police office doing this. They are supposed to be there to protect and be people who can be relied on. I think that’s probably why this particular case has got so much attention.

Agreed and the fact the victim is a good looking, middle class white woman always makes a story more clickable.