Chris Williamson MP has suggested that female only train carriages should be re-introduced to reduce assaults on female travellers.
As males statistically get assaulted more than females, I demand that I have a train carriage all to myself. Actually, all males should have their own carriage. it would reduce the levels of assault considerably.
He was being interviewed on the radio the other day and the interviewer suggested that as racial minorities get assaulted the most then there should be racially segregated carriages.
Of course the MP couldn't comment ;-)
But it just shows how silly the idea of any segregation is!
|
|
Could Bisexuals use either carriage?
|
Certainly no fun on the morning commute. A bit of visual entertainment makes it all worthwhile.
Why don't some MPs think before opening their mouth?
|
>> Certainly no fun on the morning commute. A bit of visual entertainment makes it all
>> worthwhile.
>>
>> Why don't some MPs think before opening their mouth?
>>
Be nice to actually get a seat on the morning commute!
This policy would effectively halve the number of seats!
|
|
Terrible idea. How long would it be before a female victim was held responsible for her own assault because she wasn't in a female only carriage?
|
>> Terrible idea. How long would it be before a female victim was held responsible for
>> her own assault because she wasn't in a female only carriage?
>>
Ah, victim blaming.
Was reading the Indi (i think) about a disabled girl was blamed for being molested on a bus as she shouldn't have been on it with so many men! (In Morocco.)
Of course there was no mention if the men got on before or after she did.
|
Ladies only carriages are common in many Asian countries.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-only_passenger_car
This is to provide a "safer" environment for women especially solo travellers.
However, this being mooted in UK indicates social degradation (in line with the concerns raised in Bradford thread).
Are we moving forward or backward??
|
|
One case I read about a young girl sexually assaulted by a male on a train, sought sanctuary and protection from another and he did the same to her. i've become pretty sickened of late with the type of crime I get to see in my role. It is grim out there, very grim
|
>>One case I read about
Similar in the midlands. Assaulted girl flags down a car for help, only to be assaulted again.
|
>>Are we moving forward or backward??
Movilogo, what do you think and why?
|
Neither, I think but I do think we're moving forward into a very different world here and the downside of that progress is just becoming apparent.
Phrases like 'duty of care', covering ones own back', 'blame culture' and 'legislate against' are all terms which contribute to this backwards downslide.
Young adults today have always known a world where they don't really have to think too much about their own safety as it is 'someone else's responsibility' to keep them safe.
Alongside this we have less and less funds to pursue crime, so criminals, rapists and any ne'er do well knows there is a very real chance they can get away with doing what they like.
I do feel we need to go back to making people responsible for their own safety, make them aware of the dangers but then allow them the choice to take the risk, or not as the case may be, would be a step forward.
We're all protected far too much by legislation in respect of how we live, what we do and even what we eat and drink.
The result of this is we're losing the ability to actually think for ourselves and make an informed decision with the information available.
Some consistency would help in rape accusations. Why is it permissible to hide the accusers identity but not the accused? Totally 100% wrong.
Why sentence someone to 10 years and release them after 5 years for good behaviour?
Why not just add years on to the original term for bad behaviour? That's the sort of incentive needed.
I could go on, but I need another coffee!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Fri 25 Aug 17 at 04:11
|
> Young adults today have always known a world where they don't really have to think
>> too much about their own safety as it is 'someone else's responsibility' to keep them
>> safe.
I work with the a lot of people under 21 at work. They are here for around a year to gain experience in where I work. What is it specifically that they don't think too much about in terms of their safety? I honestly don't know what it is your getting at. They seem no more or less switched on than anyone at that age. Different for sure, but not seen anything relating to little personal responsibility for their own safety.
|
"Young adults today have always known a world where they don't really have to think too much about their own safety as it is 'someone else's responsibility' to keep them safe"
That puzzled me too
I was brought up in an era when I would have said it was much safer on the streets for young people
Things like widespread carrying of knives,, drinking round the clock, and widespread use of drugs and harassment and bullying on social media. We're not features of life in the fifties and sixties.
|
Perhaps what Pat means is people in general need to take on a bit more individual responsibility and not rely on society and percieved norms quite as much.
The problem with women only carriages is two fold in my mind, in a cultural sense it emphasises the gender divide and practically it is discriminatory.
If anything it would be better to say "no single males" as the presence of male who is in a couple might reassure single females.
|
|
No, my point was that I believe young people are far more streetwise and capable of looking after themselves than ever we were. They have far more to cope with than ever we did.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Fri 25 Aug 17 at 10:07
|
|
The level of youth on youth violence is horrendous. Streetwise they may well be but they still get battered. Girl gangs feature very highly around here.
|
A number of points here...
If an elderly man sits down in a female only carriage late at night, who is going to enforce his eviction - BTP? Is he going to be dumped at the next stop and told to make his own way home?
And which carriage do the gender-neutrals sit in?
|
>> If an elderly man sits down in a female only carriage late at night....
Not allowed I am afraid. He would be ejected by the feminazis whilst the train was still moving at speed.
You can't discriminate based on age you see; an old man is still a man and capable of all sorts of evil things.
The whole bally thing is ridiculous.
Segregation based on sex, age, race, creed, political beliefs etc is all madness. We can't afford the extra carriages or the extra staff to police it.
There is talk about removing the first class sections from trains here as they take up too much space and would save having to purchase a number of extra carriages as it is - so there - you can't even discriminate based on wealth!
|
That’s exactly what I mean HC
I think it’s a case of Health and Safety will keep me safe attitude, so I don’t have to think for myself.
Dashcams will prove the other person is to blame, not me, so I don’t have to drive carefully.
I can refuse to do what I like at work, my boss isn’t ‘allowed to’ sack me
My car has all these safety features so I can drive like a loony.
I can walk along the pavement looking down at my phone because it’s everyone else’s job to get out of my way.
Sugar is bad for me but the legislation has reduced sugar in everything so I can eat twice as much cake and don’t need to exercise.
I can behave like a slut in the town centre on a Friday night because no-one is allowed to actually treat me like one.
I can accuse anyone of attacking me as a female and none of my friends will know, but it will ruin his life even if innocent.
Whatever happened to thinking things through, taking responsibility for your own safety or health?
I see this attitude in the under 30’s now and of course it will filter through more and more the older the population gets.
I realise that the youngsters now have far more to deal with than we did years ago but to that end, they also have far more ‘tools’ to deal with life in general where we relied pretty much on using our heads, and a lot of common sense.
I’ve struggled all morning (while doing other things!) to explain what I mean in this post and I know I haven’t done it very well but I know exactly what I mean!
Pat
|
|
I know what you mean Pat, I am broadly with you, speed enforcement is another example, it dumbs down and suggests that it is safe to do, say, 30mph whatever the conditions, time of day etc, we need to be empowered and to take responsibility for our actions rather than perceiving that because the sign says 30mph and the camera won't flash until 35 I'll be OK at just over 30 even though it's foggy and icy and kids are coming out of school ...
|
Pat,
People are selfish (as a whole not necessarily individuals).
Bloke in China was miffed that he was held up by a potential suicide on a bridge, so walks up and pushes him off!
The "me first" attitude is so persuasive that some governments around the world are actually running education campaigns against it.
I don't think that attitudes have changed that much over time though, there have always been thoughtless people, it is just that there are even more distractions and better reporting and of course there are more of us so it happens more often.
Recently read a report of a country squire riding his horse to quickly through a London street that he knocked down a mother and child. The mother was clearly in the wrong!?
Consider also the smokers who smoked with others, knowing full well the dangers of passive smoking but continued smoking in public regardless.
Or the drunk drivers in the 50s, 60s and 70s who would drive without any care and saw it as a right.
Or the parents not strapping their kids in, knowing full well that a safety belt would save lives.
It extends to corporations as well. Car manufacturers not recalling faulty cars because the cost outweigh the potential litigation losses in the even of a fatality.
|
You're absolutely right Zippy (and HC) and when you look at our generation we're equally as guilty in our own way.
Perhaps the reason I notice it more now is because I have more time available to notice things.
Pat
|
|
You are simply describing human and indeed animal behavior. We are all programmed to be selfish creatures. We have to be to survive. It is only culture that teaches us that it sometimes in our long term interest to act for the benefit of others. The important thing is such behavior has to be taught.
|
I think that's the basis of my problem with this CG.
Surely we would be better to educate, than to legislate against everything?
How about teaching parenting in school instead of social studies for one lesson per week just one year?
How to budget household finances instead of Pythagoras Theorem?
Consideration and how to behave socially?
All the things we were taught by our parents but it seems these days parents are too busy having to work full time to make ends meet, to spend time on things like this.
Pat
|
>> Surely we would be better to educate, than to legislate against everything?
>>
Exactly, better to educate and empower than legislate and dumb down.
|
>>If anything it would be better to say "no single males" as the presence of male who is in a couple might reassure single females.
What is your definition of 'single male'. One who is on his own or someone not in a relationship?
What happens if two men get into the carriage? Are they going to be kicked out because they are both single? What if they're gays? How will you tell the difference?
If a large group of lads gets on, how will you tell if some are single men and some are with their boyfriend? If I travel with my missus and my brother (who is single), will he have to go in a separate carriage?
I don't think you've thought it through.
|
>> I don't think you've thought it through.
>>
I think you have misunderstood. Firstly I said "if anything" so was commenting on the women only idea rather than presenting a considered proposal.
However I was not suggesting that men would have to somehow prove that they are in a relationship, rather what I meant was women and couples and not men on their own.
That's not to say to agree with the idea as per the other points in my post.
|
|
Some women are as bad as men and regularly work in "partnership" to abuse
|
|
You only have to glance at social media sites to observe that particular phenomenon on a daily basis RP.
|
"But it just shows how silly the idea of any segregation is!"
I think it's a great idea - in fact, segregation of women should be made compulsory. Similarly in, say, bars and sports clubs women should be segregated in order to protect them from the gaze of lascivious men. Roads are becoming crowded, dangerous places for the fairer sex - so why don't we just allow men to drive vehicles and spare women from the stress of all that. Perhaps women should cover themselves up, and that way, they won't attract attention from men at all. And of course, if they fail to take measures to protect themselves, we should encourage them back to the straight and narrow by administering a good beating - for their own good.
Now that would be progress!
|
:)
The only people who need segregating are the scum who commit assaults. Segregating into prison.
|
|
No, they should be too tired to cause trouble after spending their whole day cleaning, carrying and fixing or whatever else their sentence insists they do as compensation to society.
|
Women should only travel if accompanied by a male relative.
(Did anyone else view the horrifying "The State" series?)
|
|
Brilliant series, well made.
|
|
That's a Labour MP for you. Meanwhile the Tory Government is proposing legislation that will allow anybody who 'self-identifies' as female to be treated thus. So anybody could sit in the female-only carriage.
|
|
Or in the ladies changing room down the gym?
|
For the unmarried women - a miss-carriage.
|
Female Only Train Carriages - CGNorwich
