Baroness Jenny Jones calls for 6pm curfew on all men in England after the murder of Sarah Everard

a reply to: Tulpa

Thing is there Tulpa our jails are as full of as many mental health cases as they are criminals, and once they are in there, sometimes/most times, locked up 23 hours out the day, nobody cares about there feelings.

Tend to agree with you where the likes of sex offenders and murderers are concerned all the same, who they don't even supervise properly once they are released on licence after serving sometimes as little as half there sentence, no matter what they claim to be the case.

How would the curfew be enforced? By the police?

Like the murder suspect.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I know it's hard to do but let's keep an open mind on this case.

What if the 'suspected' flashing cop didn't harm the young lady, but was a convenient stooge to fulfill 'an agenda'?

An nice way to mask the unthinkable is to offer up something more unthinkable.

The Baroness is a long term Police critic and civil liberties activist, so she knows reactionary nonsense only fuels flames. So why would she say that?

Let's wait until some facts that can be challenged emerge, and then make a noise. TV.

a reply to: CJCrawley

And is it only Woman Police?

My understanding all Men all being on curfew after 6pm.

Back to the drawing board Baroness Jenny.

It is comforting to know that England has politicians as rock stupid as the ones in the USA.

Similar to how the Vid works (it can tell time) so does the modus operandi of abductors. I for one get extra creepy at 6:01pm.

I approve this stance.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
a reply to: Boadicea

Did you even read the OP?

Of course I did.

Why do you ask? If you have a point to make, then make it. Don't be shy.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: NeoSpace

Wouldn’t it make more sense for woman to have the curfew?
Criminals won’t follow the rules anyways...

No, because suggesting that people be segregated by gender is sexist.

Waitwhat?

Well on the surface you are correct.

But in this case segregation must be fine because it is undoubtedly protecting another more sacred cow.

There are different levels of offensive and men are at the lower end.

I don't like the Green Party. They come up with all sorts of ridiculous ideas, but unlike the Monster Raving Loonies they aren't funny - just insane.

Having said all that, i will defend this Peer a little in that she wasn't being serious, she was highlighting what women feel like (curfewed) when it starts to get dark. She was trying to make men think about it. This is obvious if you listen to the debate in full and also her further subsequent comments on it.

What i feel is being missed in this latest social media campaign is that it is actually men who are far more likely to be the subject of random assaults on darkened streets. It isn't just women, lots of men also don't feel safe walking around inner cities in the dark.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: NeoSpace

Mark "Dripford" of Wales is considering it!

Corrected spelling

Why do we amplify these idiots?

originally posted by: projectvxn
Why do we amplify these idiots?

Again, context is everything. It was tongue in cheek in a House of Lords debate. It is the media that are whipping this up into something else (surprise surprise).

a reply to: Flavian

Safety is an illusion if it is promised by anyone or anything other than you.

a reply to: Flavian

Imagine that. Media ginning up division for clicks and ratings.

a reply to: Boadicea

Because you and I both know damn well that she's right about women being safer if MEN are subject to a curfew. And why she made this statement at this time.

So you agree with the silly old bint? Let’s take the thinking further and just say women would be safer without MEN full stop...

Seriously what is the world coming too?

a reply to: projectvxn

I don't disagree. I neither support this political party or this Peer in particular. However, it is important to note that she doesn't really want men off the streets from 6PM onwards. Only the media and social media are saying that, not the lady herself.

originally posted by: CJCrawley
How would the curfew be enforced? By the police?

Like the murder suspect.

If there was a suspect at large in the community I would understand the caution but in this particular case he is in a cell or an interview suite.

Seems like collective punishment of a bunch of innocent guys to me.

Not that there aren't potentially more dodgy people out there but, in this particular case, they appear to already have their man.

a reply to: Flavian

I understand that.

What I'm saying is that her premise is flawed in that nothing other than the person themselves can guarantee safety.

Lying to women and saying that if not for the presence of men they would otherwise be safe is abject nonsense regardless of media spin.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Flavian

Safety is an illusion if it is promised by anyone or anything other than you.

Oh no, not guns again...

Harrumph.

Did the point being made go completely over all of your heads?

Notice how men are responding vehemently to this suggestion. Yet anytime we have a case like this one, men are the first ones to say how if women changed their behavior or took different actions they wouldn't be a victim.

The Baroness is taking that same wide brush mentality and instead of applying it to women, who are the victim in most cases involving a woman, she's applying it to men, who are the assailant in most crimes.

If you don't want your behavior to be affected due to the actions of an evil person, then why do you blame women for being victims and essentially demanding they change their behavior so it doesn't happen again in the future?