What grinds my gears...

[matty98]

 

[Beliall]

44 minutes ago, matty98 said:

 

@Mark this is why we need a negative rep

 

oh its a piss take? still ****ing irritating

Edited 27 March 2017 by Beliall

[ajthefox]

7 minutes ago, Beliall said:

@Mark this is why we need a negative rep

Did you watch the video?

[Beliall]

17 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

Did you watch the video?

as much as i could manage

[ozleicester]

6 hours ago, Beliall said:

@Mark this is why we need a negative rep

 

oh its a piss take? still ****ing irritating

"what flavour do you like?"

"oh I dunno, something natural like Mountain Dew or Cheetos" 

[sphericalfox]

18 hours ago, Babylon said:

Smoking advertising for years was about "lifestyle" for a reason, people were sold the idea of looking cool. Of course the end game of those companies is to get you hooked though.

 

Strange that the ones I see producing the most smoke, more often than not tick a lot of boxes in terms of the people they are. I'm not talking the odd puff of smoke, I'm talking the ones that produce an ridiculous amount. Modded car - Tick, loud music - tick, trying to look a bit "bad boy" - tick, more smoke than a steam train - tick.

It's not smoke. It's vapour. No combustion; no smoke.

[whoareyaaa]

This guy on BBC 1 morning news think he does the sport as well that Dan Walker I think, looks like a right miserable ****er every morning... then you have that drab women next to him.

 

proper depressing shit from the BBC, drugs spring to mind.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, sphericalfox said:

It's not smoke. It's vapour. No combustion; no smoke.

Yes I'm aware.

[Jon the Hat]

That a female judge cannot make a sensible comment about women putting themselves at risk of being targeted by predatory rapists when they get very drunk without being branded misguided and accused of victim blaming.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That a female judge cannot make a sensible comment about women putting themselves at risk of being targeted by predatory rapists when they get very drunk without being branded misguided and accused of victim blaming.

 

It does sound as if the judge made it clear that the rapist was still entirely to blame.

The victim herself clearly thinks so: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/megan-clark-rape-victim-manchester-12807073

 

Of course, in an ideal world, a woman (or man) could get drunk without running any risk - and we could all leave our doors unlocked - but it isn't an ideal world.

 

I suppose the other lesson to learn is that we who are not predatory criminals should look out for people who put themselves in a vulnerable position by walking the streets blind drunk or whatever.

[Thracian]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That a female judge cannot make a sensible comment about women putting themselves at risk of being targeted by predatory rapists when they get very drunk without being branded misguided and accused of victim blaming.

Judge suggests women behave responsibly ( for their own safety) outrage!   

[Nick]

7 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That a female judge cannot make a sensible comment about women putting themselves at risk of being targeted by predatory rapists when they get very drunk without being branded misguided and accused of victim blaming.

 

Agreed - when you are drunk you are more vulnerable, end of.

 

I've spent years working with victims, offenders and those who engage both for a living and nobody's saying somebody is encouraging/inviting/asking for it or any of that nonsense but in terms of being para, a person is both more vulnerable to committing crime and being a victim of many differing types of crime.

 

The issue with sexual assault and drunkenness is sensitive because of the nature of the offence in a changing contemporary culture - It's tough to get people to report such crimes, firstly because they fear they will not be believed and secondly because they may be made to feel that they are to blame.

 

Both of these issues are exacerbated when alcohol comes in to the mix, hence some objections to the tone of the remarks.

 

The judges comments were in my assessment clear and fair - but her words on reflection could have been chosen perhaps more carefully considering the context.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Thracian said:

Judge suggests women behave responsibly ( for their own safety) outrage!   

Responsibly is not the appropriate word I don't think.  It has implicit meaning that you are responsible for what happens to you when drunk, which would be true if you walked into traffic, but not in this case, and I understand why people are very sensitive to anything which suggests the victim is responsible for the criminal actions of others.  Judge suggests women do not make themselves vulnerable to criminals would be better.

[Thracian]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Responsibly is not the appropriate word I don't think.  It has implicit meaning that you are responsible for what happens to you when drunk, which would be true if you walked into traffic, but not in this case, and I understand why people are very sensitive to anything which suggests the victim is responsible for the criminal actions of others.  Judge suggests women do not make themselves vulnerable to criminals would be better.

I nearly added a rider about that but I hadn't read the judge's statement and couldn't imagine she'd have implied in any way that a woman being drunk would mitigate anyone else's action.  It wouldn't in my mind.

I chose the word "responsibly" because while a woman should be able to dress (legally) in the way she chooses, it seems perfectly obvious that some people - perhaps themselves the worse for alcohol, consider that the more provocatively a woman dresses or behaves (including in relation to their levels of intoxication) the greater their justification for taking advantage.

You and I might not think that but some clearly do. And, presumably the female judge felt it would improve the situation if women didn't get drunk and behaved more sensibly/responsibly/considerately, call it what you wish.          

Edited 28 March 2017 by Thracian

[ozleicester]

the ONLY thing that causes rape... is a RAPIST.

 

[sphericalfox]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

Yes I'm aware.

It's just the verb you were utilising wasn't correct tis all.

 

I am in agreement about tools who feel it necessary to plume vapour clouds that might change the local weather, like it's some sort of competition on masculinity or driven by an attention seeking disorder, as someone who vapes, and smokes, I hope I do so with discretion and some consideration. But bells be bells whatever they are utilising to promote their insecurities or lack of social etiquette.

 

 

[Finnaldo]

32 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

the ONLY thing that causes rape... is a RAPIST.

 

 

I don't think anyone including the judge implied otherwise, but it's a simple warning that drinking until you can barely stand up with no capacity to think or fend for yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault, mugging or any other individually-targeted crime. It's not blaming them at all, it's more about knowing your limits and becoming less of a target to these kind of scumbags. Even the victim came out and defended the judge's comments as correct.

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

the ONLY thing that causes rape... is a RAPIST.

 

Don't think anyone's arguing that tbf. Saying not to put yourself in unnecessary danger isn't the same as giving carte Blanche to the attackers

[ozleicester]

9 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I don't think anyone including the judge implied otherwise, but it's a simple warning that drinking until you can barely stand up with no capacity to think or fend for yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault, mugging or any other individually-targeted crime. It's not blaming them at all, it's more about knowing your limits and becoming less of a target to these kind of scumbags. Even the victim came out and defended the judge's comments as correct.

 

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Don't think anyone's arguing that tbf. Saying not to put yourself in unnecessary danger isn't the same as giving carte Blanche to the attackers

With respect...I disagree, the statement, when all is said and done... still leaves some blame with the victim.

[Finnaldo]

Just now, ozleicester said:

 

With respect...I disagree, the statement, when all is said and done... still leaves some blame with the victim.

Ok, but what part of the statement do you feel put the blame on victims?

[bovril]

By drinking heavily you are putting yourself at more risk of almost anything. That goes without saying. So I can kind of understand why people might be disappointed that the judge made that comment about rape.

[ozleicester]

9 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

Ok, but what part of the statement do you feel put the blame on victims?

"a judge who said women were putting themselves in danger by drinking "

 

Women are not in danger due to drinking... They are in danger due to rapists.. and only fvckwit cvnts who rape women!

Edited 28 March 2017 by ozleicester

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

"a judge who said women were putting themselves in danger by drinking "

 

Women are not in danger due to drinking... They are in danger due to rapists.. and only fvckwit cvnts who rape women!

Would these women be in less danger if they could run away, scream or fight back against the racist?

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Would these women be in less danger if they could run away, scream or fight back against the racist?

No, the danger comes from the rapist.. not the womans situation.

[Finnaldo]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

"a judge who said women were putting themselves in danger by drinking "

 

Women are not in danger due to drinking... rapists.. and only fvckwit cvnts who rape women!

 

I one hundred percent agree that rapists are the danger.

 

But a woman with lower inhibitions, and barely in control of themselves yet alone fight off an attacker, are obviously a soft target for said fvckwit cvnts.

 

If I got hammered tonight, stumble into an alley and get mugged, it's not my fault but there's steps I could have taken to make myself less of a target in that situation.

 

The judge, in my opinion, simply outlined that knowing your limit and showing caution could help prevent the opportunity or at the very worst make an undeniable case in court. 

Edited 28 March 2017 by Finnaldo