Random Irritations

Simple. The person offended is always, no exception, 100% in the right. Obligatory education classes until the offender thinks right before going on national television and apologise. Refusal leads to work camp.

I propose 6pm throughout to 11pm on BBC every Thursday for this purpose.

I actually find the above quite offensive.
When do you start? ;)
 
There are places near where I live that I wouldn't venture into or through at nighttime. And I would strongly advise my wife or any woman or girl , or indeed any meek person, not to go. That is being realistic.
Is that a good situation? Is that a tolerable situation?
Of course it isn't. Nobody suggests it is, and just because people here and throughout the Country recognise that it isn't the fault of just one gender, doesn't mean you are entitled to label all men as having to accept blame for the vile actions of a small minority of them.
What I find annoying is that it is a fair bet that if the authorities got (some say)heavy handed about this problem and started to sort these offending men out, then the same people supporting this attack on all men, would be the bleeding hearts that would condemn the remedy.
How about "forever life" for rape on "stranger" women : 10 years, no parole for domestic abh violence?.: 5 years no parole for indecent exposure:
Not maximum sentences, but fixed sentences?


Who are those going to bleat about how such sentences wouldn't deter, or how , instead, it is necessary to psychologically evaluate the offender before "treating" him.

It seems that we want these awful events stopped without being "nasty",
and so, in line with the way thinking has gone for years, let's blame society, or identifiable parts of it, usually some form of Authority, instead of the responsibility being put on the individual offender.

Or how about the death penalty in the correct circumstances?
Ooops, been here before!
 
I actually find the above quite offensive.
When do you start? ;)

The funny thing is that some people wouldn't understand the point that your reply is making in regards to offence.

I'll start building the camp after I finish work tonight. I Refuse to apologise!
 
Unfortunately, people have different levels/ideas of what's offensive.
Should we all adjust our levels/ideas/behaviour to those of the most easily offended?
Of course people have different levels, nobody said any different.

But what we should do is be aware and at least try and respect someone else’s point of view.

What you effectively have done in the laughter thread is said you apologise if you’ve offended anyone, but I’m not going to change so those offended are going to have to live with it! Sort of makes your apology worthless when it means nothing.
 
Simple. The person offended is always, no exception, 100% in the right. Obligatory education classes until the offender thinks right before going on national television and apologise. Refusal leads to work camp.

I propose 6pm throughout to 11pm on BBC every Thursday for this purpose.

This is as silly as saying all women are angels and all men are evil.

Humans are complex, in some societies the 'value of a life' is pretty low. In a multicultural society it is even more complex. If you add in "freedom of expression" the right be offended comes with a right to offend.
 
There are places near where I live that I wouldn't venture into or through at nighttime. And I would strongly advise my wife or any woman or girl , or indeed any meek person, not to go. That is being realistic.
Is that a good situation? Is that a tolerable situation?
Of course it isn't. Nobody suggests it is, and just because people here and throughout the Country recognise that it isn't the fault of just one gender, doesn't mean you are entitled to label all men as having to accept blame for the vile actions of a small minority of them.
What I find annoying is that it is a fair bet that if the authorities got (some say)heavy handed about this problem and started to sort these offending men out, then the same people supporting this attack on all men, would be the bleeding hearts that would condemn the remedy.
How about "forever life" for rape on "stranger" women : 10 years, no parole for domestic abh violence?.: 5 years no parole for indecent exposure:
Not maximum sentences, but fixed sentences?

Who are those going to bleat about how such sentences wouldn't deter, or how , instead, it is necessary to psychologically evaluate the offender before "treating" him.

It seems that we want these awful events stopped without being "nasty",
and so, in line with the way thinking has gone for years, let's blame society, or identifiable parts of it, usually some form of Authority, instead of the responsibility being put on the individual offender.
So you take one post and push it to the extreme! Talk about labelling!

I wholeheartadly agree with everything you say about punishement and sentencing.

And it gone on for years because people in authority have not taken responsibility, what is the gender majority of those in positions of power who could change these laws/rules?
 
This is as silly as saying all women are angels and all men are evil.

Humans are complex, in some societies the 'value of a life' is pretty low. In a multicultural society it is even more complex. If you add in "freedom of expression" the right be offended comes with a right to offend.
Whose offended? Why the labelling of people with a different point of view? How about just respecting opinions and having a grown up discussion instead of reaching for the “offended” line everytime.
 
"Women are not the problem."
"Only men can stop male violence against women."

These quotes are absolutely true.

But men are far more likely to be murdered, twice as many men are murdered than women. Men are far far more likely to be murdered on the streets by a stranger, 90% of these murders are men. There is little logic to make this all about women v men.
 
I'm always amazed that in films and tv dramas that no-one ever has the need to go for a comfort break unless for some nefarious purpose, they can always get a signal on their phones no matter where they are, and that they can get anywhere by car in a major city within minutes with very little traffic to hold them up.

Especially in London. Any journey in a film / tv programme always goes past big ben or tower bridge. I am always amazed when the main characters need to rush to Heathrow airport from somewhere in west London like Notting Hill, but need to drive across Tower bridge :LOL:
 
This is as silly as saying all women are angels and all men are evil.

Humans are complex, in some societies the 'value of a life' is pretty low. In a multicultural society it is even more complex. If you add in "freedom of expression" the right be offended comes with a right to offend.

Did you just read and take my post seriously? :unsure:
 
I don’t think it’s a gender thing no matter what many say, it’s just a fact that there will always be a very small number that will do harm to someone either planned or random..
when talking to my wife and youngest daughter last night about this, both said they were more afraid of gangs of girls when out. When I asked what they would think if they were walking alone and a passing man said “hello” (as suggested on the radio yesterday, in an attempt to put the woman’s mind at ease) both said they would think the man a creep.
 
Andrew Neil has posted the latest UK murder stats on Twitter if folk in here want to have a look.
I won't post a link unless I'm told I can.

Do you mean these ones;

Homicide rate 11.7/million, with rate for males (17/million population) almost 3 times that for females (6/million population) -- a higher gap than previous years because of a 20% rise in male victims, from 422 to 506, and 16% fall in female victims, from 225 to 188.
 
Just got a notification on Facebook that our band's page goes against their page name policy due to profanity and must be changed. :rolleyes: How did it survive the first 13-odd years that we've had it up for then? Stupid auto-flagging I think.
 
Do you mean these ones;

Homicide rate 11.7/million, with rate for males (17/million population) almost 3 times that for females (6/million population) -- a higher gap than previous years because of a 20% rise in male victims, from 422 to 506, and 16% fall in female victims, from 225 to 188.

it's not just about murder, is it? I suspect if you looked at stats for rape and sexual assault, you would get a very different picture.
 
Top