Police investigate after woman complains re whistling

[saaby93]

Watchman said:

Technically the former, yes. I'm not really sure how the latter has anything to do with this.

However, it's all about perception, reception, intent and the capability of someone to "deal with it". In the case of a group of large men intimidating a woman over the course of a month who clearly isn't comfortable with it, it's just bullying. In the case of a group of girls engaging with with a group of men, well in this case there is a "group" of men on the receiving end and, like it or not, men and women's equality isn't equal. I bet the men loved it. It's right to stop the behaviour but the telling point is that no-one complained about it.

Now we're opening a can of worms. 'I bet the men loved it' therefore it's ok?
In domestic abuse against men, many would fail to report abuse because of the shame and stigma.
Imagine if a bloke had felt intimidated, you could ask how far he would have got with a complaint?
But as you can see, it did go somewhere as did the the subject of the OP.
In most cases this type of thing is harmless and a bit of fun on both sides.
Let's not try to ban all of it just because sometimes it isn't. Deal with those few as in the OP. No need to go OTT.

[Oakey]

What I don't understand is, if she didn't want unwanted attention from people, why would she have her mug plastered all over the press and open herself up to even more unwanted attention from a far larger audience?

It baffles my mind that people do this.

[johnxjsc1985]

Oakey said:

What I don't understand is, if she didn't want unwanted attention from people, why would she have her mug plastered all over the press and open herself up to even more unwanted attention from a far larger audience?

It baffles my mind that people do this.

women are a mystery aren't they.

[Watchman]

saaby93 said:

Watchman said:

Technically the former, yes. I'm not really sure how the latter has anything to do with this.

However, it's all about perception, reception, intent and the capability of someone to "deal with it". In the case of a group of large men intimidating a woman over the course of a month who clearly isn't comfortable with it, it's just bullying. In the case of a group of girls engaging with with a group of men, well in this case there is a "group" of men on the receiving end and, like it or not, men and women's equality isn't equal. I bet the men loved it. It's right to stop the behaviour but the telling point is that no-one complained about it.

Now we're opening a can of worms. 'I bet the men loved it' therefore it's ok?

Absolutely not - I even said it was right to stop it however surely you can see the difference between a group of men as recipients of cat-calling on one hand and a single woman on the other?

saaby93 said:

In domestic abuse against men, many would fail to report abuse because of the shame and stigma.
Imagine if a bloke had felt intimidated, you could ask how far he would have got with a complaint?
But as you can see, it did go somewhere as did the the subject of the OP.

What went somewhere? Have we drifted off course a bit?

Regardless, you're talking about bullying again. Doesn't matter who is the recipient, there's no "good" bullying.

saaby93 said:

In most cases this type of thing is harmless and a bit of fun on both sides.

Although I don't agree with your assessment that this type of behaviour is harmless "in most cases", I do acknowledge that it can be from time to time. But clearly a single woman being on the receiving end of this for a month isn't one of those harmless occasions. Can you see this?

saaby93 said:

Let's not try to ban all of it just because sometimes it isn't. Deal with those few as in the OP. No need to go OTT.

I doubt anyone has measured the incidences of "harmless vs harmful" to assess whether most are one or the other. And I never called for further banning of anything (although Scotland may consider including wolf whistling in their forthcoming legislation - I think one of those links to the Mirror quoted that). I simply sought to challenge the first 3 pages of people calling the woman names and questioning whether her approaching the Police was right in the face of consistent bullying. That's what it is - bullying.

[Watchman]

Oakey said:

What I don't understand is, if she didn't want unwanted attention from people, why would she have her mug plastered all over the press and open herself up to even more unwanted attention from a far larger audience?

It baffles my mind that people do this.

Did any of you read the article?

The Telegraph said:

But she decided to pursue the matter through official channels in the hope that her story would prompt others to speak out

[saaby93]

Watchman said:

I simply sought to challenge the first 3 pages of people calling the woman names and questioning whether her approaching the Police was right in the face of consistent bullying.

fair enough

[JonRB]

rb5er said:

ash73 said:

Seems fair enough to me if she had to endure a load of abuse every day for a month

You think "hello darling" and wolf whistling is abuse?

If she felt harassed, uncomfortable and threatened, then yes. Why the hell should she have to put up with a bunch of misogynistic troglodytes acting like cavemen?

Still, this thread has gone pretty much the way I expected it would have when I popped in to have a look. Although that could be Confirmation Bias I guess.

[HoHoHo]

Ugly bint (in my opinion) should be grateful for the attention

[Richyboy]

Surely we need to see what she was wearing when she walked past the building site. Why walk around with tits bulging out, ass tight clothes, hair done, face painted and not expect blokes to look.

[bitchstewie]

Richyboy said:

Surely we need to see what she was wearing when she walked past the building site. Why walk around with tits bulging out, ass tight clothes, hair done, face painted and not expect blokes to look.

I look - I seem to manage to keep my gob shut though.

[johnxjsc1985]

Richyboy said:

Surely we need to see what she was wearing when she walked past the building site. Why walk around with tits bulging out, ass tight clothes, hair done, face painted and not expect blokes to look.

apparently we as men are not supposed to react in such a way as Whistling at them. However it appears its ok to have "thoughts" as long as you dont act on them?.

[carinaman]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Oakey said:

What I don't understand is, if she didn't want unwanted attention from people, why would she have her mug plastered all over the press and open herself up to even more unwanted attention from a far larger audience?

It baffles my mind that people do this.

women are a mystery aren't they.

But some male wannabe MPs seem worse.

I can't believe this story made the front of the Daily Mail besides them digging into Ed Miliband. She's made the front cover besides our next Prime Minister?

I'm not sure what that says about Britain and the British press.

Is she a Milifandomette?

[rb5er]

PurpleTurtle said:

If nobody takes a stand then idiots like these will soon be getting their todger out to flash your 10yo daughter in public, "because it's just banter, she loved it"

Ermmm, you really think that?

[irocfan]

rb5er said:

ash73 said:

Seems fair enough to me if she had to endure a load of abuse every day for a month

You think "hello darling" and wolf whistling is abuse?

whether I think it is abuse or not is quite irrelevant - she thinks it's abuse and that's an end to it. Regardless of what you think of the woman/bimbo/whatever in question

T5XARV said:

She could have crossed the street ?

why should she have to?

[Jasandjules]

Watchman said:

As said above, it just isn't cool. In the same way that shell suits, football hooliganism, spitting in public (or at all), and other yobbish behaviour isn't.

Like getting loads of tattoos on your arms and even some on your artificially inflated boobs..

[JonRB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I don't know, I wasn't there. And neither were you.

Context is everything - if someone stepped in front of you and blocked your way, stuck their face right in yours, sneered, and said "Orright, pal? Nice tie" and then did the the 'coffee beans' sign, then *surely* he was just complementing your tie? No? Is "Nice tie" really threatening behaviour? Really?

Devil's advocate there, obviously. But you get my point.

Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 28th April 20:26

[JonRB]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

So we're back to the old "look at how she was dressed, Your Honour. She was clearly asking for it" rape defence, but applied to verbal abuse and threatening behaviour instead?

[Oakey]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Like I said before, she goes by the name Poppy Vane, I'm pretty sure that isn't to do with a love of instruments for showing the direction of the wind.

Google that name and there's even a photo of her in her bra.

[Martin4x4]

Surely that should be Poppy's Vain?

Even mumsnet recognise wolf whistles as a complement.

I think this story is probably about cynically 'digitally marketing' herself than because of any real offence.

[johnxjsc1985]

Martin4x4 said:

Surely that should be Poppy's Vain?

Even mumsnet recognise wolf whistles as a complement.

I think this story is probably about cynically 'digitally marketing' herself than because of any real offence.

A few people on here with a huge great pole stuck up their backside think the lads should be hung drawn and quartered.