|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+x+x+xThe reporting of this has been somewhat misleading, because it suggests that these are new offences, but in fact things like following someone, wolf whistling, catcalling and persistent staring are already illegal under the Public Order Act. What is being proposed is making it a specific crime, if these behaviors are done for a particular reason. The motive is the most important thing, rather than the behaviour, although you would need to have both to be convicted. It is rather like the way that an offence such as assault, becomes more serious if it is racially motivated. None of the behaviours mentioned above are defined in law, but they all come under the definition of threatening behavior. There is no time limit on how long you have to stare at someone, in order for it to become 'persistent staring', for example. It is very much in the subjective opinion of the person being stared at. If you stared at them for 10 seconds and they felt threatened by that, then it would be threatening behaviour. But there is a defence, which is that the person doing the behaviour must intend to cause a threat and that is where most of these things would fall down. Most wolf whistling is not intended to make the person on the receiving end feel under threat. It also has to make the person think immediate violence is about to be used against them. So cat calling someone from 100 yards away is unlikely to led to immediate violence and will not be affected. Add to that the biggest problem, which is that most women don't bother to report these things anyway and I don't see that it will make much difference out on the streets. Hi As you accurately describe it is all relative to "behaviour", but importantly a person's perception of the other person's e.g. object v viewer. Not wishing to distract others from the post but I wish to expand the scenario beyond "staring" by looking at it as "behaviour". Saturday I went to a friend's home for social drinks with others. I am teetotal but still enjoy myself in the company of others who do. Most of the guests know I post here but I have not disclosed my offence as I know most there views on SO; but they respect me; though not understanding why I want to post or my supporting nature to SO. Present was an American woman who I had never met before who enjoyed her vodka and soda quite well. After a few she started to loudly express her views on me to everyone and would not believe my age when I told her - she was 49 I'm 66 but she thought I was 52. To be brief she constantly kept approaching me to cuddle, then kiss me etc. Everyone was laughing but I did feel uncomfortable. Now given the circumstances of me as an ex- so, and if I reported that "unwanted attention" to the Police, who believes that it would be taken seriously? Or if they did investigate, is it of a general opinion that I would still suffer because due to my offence being made public etc. As I mentioned above, I know the opinions of those attending about SO. Also she went back to the USA yesterday so would the Government (UK/USA) really care as in the case of Harry Dunn? I know there are so many paths from the intention of this "law" but I wonder what has been the depth and coverage of the research and the agenda behind all those wanting it! Well, to be honest, as this didn't happen in a public space it probably wouldn't be covered by the proposed law. Even so, the points you raise are interesting, and the MP who introduced the bill did say in his speech that men and boys can be victims as well, although the behaviour being targeted disproportionately affects women and girls. Hi As ever thanks for your words. As mentioned I raise it more from the "male" victim scenario and how pressure from others can escalate both a persons feelings and the action(s) of the other. As with another topic concerning my SOR start date, the interpretation of the scenario and societies rules and laws are driven by the "agenda" of others. I appreciate the male victim aspect of this, which is probably more than the media and the general public will do. As punter99 said, there is no new offence, so this is just a new aggravating factor. It would still be up to the police to enforce the law, and their strategy is set by the Policing and Crime Commissioner, so if the local commissioner says concentrate on crimes against women and girls, that is what the police will do. As you say, it always comes down to the agenda. The new law only applies to public places, so if both the people involved are in dwellings, then there is no offence. This just adds text to the Public Order Act 1986, which specifically excludes people in dwellings. Hi I do appreciate your response. Pushing the envelope on "agendas", someone commits an offence outside of a "home" yet their SOPO states conditions only relevant to "inside" a home. Especially when their is no evidence or suggestion of an offence ever in a home! Or the offence was against a "female" but a condition includes female and male even though there is agreement the offender has no "male" attraction tendencies.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+x+x+xThe reporting of this has been somewhat misleading, because it suggests that these are new offences, but in fact things like following someone, wolf whistling, catcalling and persistent staring are already illegal under the Public Order Act. What is being proposed is making it a specific crime, if these behaviors are done for a particular reason. The motive is the most important thing, rather than the behaviour, although you would need to have both to be convicted. It is rather like the way that an offence such as assault, becomes more serious if it is racially motivated. None of the behaviours mentioned above are defined in law, but they all come under the definition of threatening behavior. There is no time limit on how long you have to stare at someone, in order for it to become 'persistent staring', for example. It is very much in the subjective opinion of the person being stared at. If you stared at them for 10 seconds and they felt threatened by that, then it would be threatening behaviour. But there is a defence, which is that the person doing the behaviour must intend to cause a threat and that is where most of these things would fall down. Most wolf whistling is not intended to make the person on the receiving end feel under threat. It also has to make the person think immediate violence is about to be used against them. So cat calling someone from 100 yards away is unlikely to led to immediate violence and will not be affected. Add to that the biggest problem, which is that most women don't bother to report these things anyway and I don't see that it will make much difference out on the streets. Hi As you accurately describe it is all relative to "behaviour", but importantly a person's perception of the other person's e.g. object v viewer. Not wishing to distract others from the post but I wish to expand the scenario beyond "staring" by looking at it as "behaviour". Saturday I went to a friend's home for social drinks with others. I am teetotal but still enjoy myself in the company of others who do. Most of the guests know I post here but I have not disclosed my offence as I know most there views on SO; but they respect me; though not understanding why I want to post or my supporting nature to SO. Present was an American woman who I had never met before who enjoyed her vodka and soda quite well. After a few she started to loudly express her views on me to everyone and would not believe my age when I told her - she was 49 I'm 66 but she thought I was 52. To be brief she constantly kept approaching me to cuddle, then kiss me etc. Everyone was laughing but I did feel uncomfortable. Now given the circumstances of me as an ex- so, and if I reported that "unwanted attention" to the Police, who believes that it would be taken seriously? Or if they did investigate, is it of a general opinion that I would still suffer because due to my offence being made public etc. As I mentioned above, I know the opinions of those attending about SO. Also she went back to the USA yesterday so would the Government (UK/USA) really care as in the case of Harry Dunn? I know there are so many paths from the intention of this "law" but I wonder what has been the depth and coverage of the research and the agenda behind all those wanting it! Well, to be honest, as this didn't happen in a public space it probably wouldn't be covered by the proposed law. Even so, the points you raise are interesting, and the MP who introduced the bill did say in his speech that men and boys can be victims as well, although the behaviour being targeted disproportionately affects women and girls. Hi As ever thanks for your words. As mentioned I raise it more from the "male" victim scenario and how pressure from others can escalate both a persons feelings and the action(s) of the other. As with another topic concerning my SOR start date, the interpretation of the scenario and societies rules and laws are driven by the "agenda" of others. I appreciate the male victim aspect of this, which is probably more than the media and the general public will do. As punter99 said, there is no new offence, so this is just a new aggravating factor. It would still be up to the police to enforce the law, and their strategy is set by the Policing and Crime Commissioner, so if the local commissioner says concentrate on crimes against women and girls, that is what the police will do. As you say, it always comes down to the agenda. The new law only applies to public places, so if both the people involved are in dwellings, then there is no offence. This just adds text to the Public Order Act 1986, which specifically excludes people in dwellings.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+x+xThe reporting of this has been somewhat misleading, because it suggests that these are new offences, but in fact things like following someone, wolf whistling, catcalling and persistent staring are already illegal under the Public Order Act. What is being proposed is making it a specific crime, if these behaviors are done for a particular reason. The motive is the most important thing, rather than the behaviour, although you would need to have both to be convicted. It is rather like the way that an offence such as assault, becomes more serious if it is racially motivated. None of the behaviours mentioned above are defined in law, but they all come under the definition of threatening behavior. There is no time limit on how long you have to stare at someone, in order for it to become 'persistent staring', for example. It is very much in the subjective opinion of the person being stared at. If you stared at them for 10 seconds and they felt threatened by that, then it would be threatening behaviour. But there is a defence, which is that the person doing the behaviour must intend to cause a threat and that is where most of these things would fall down. Most wolf whistling is not intended to make the person on the receiving end feel under threat. It also has to make the person think immediate violence is about to be used against them. So cat calling someone from 100 yards away is unlikely to led to immediate violence and will not be affected. Add to that the biggest problem, which is that most women don't bother to report these things anyway and I don't see that it will make much difference out on the streets. Hi As you accurately describe it is all relative to "behaviour", but importantly a person's perception of the other person's e.g. object v viewer. Not wishing to distract others from the post but I wish to expand the scenario beyond "staring" by looking at it as "behaviour". Saturday I went to a friend's home for social drinks with others. I am teetotal but still enjoy myself in the company of others who do. Most of the guests know I post here but I have not disclosed my offence as I know most there views on SO; but they respect me; though not understanding why I want to post or my supporting nature to SO. Present was an American woman who I had never met before who enjoyed her vodka and soda quite well. After a few she started to loudly express her views on me to everyone and would not believe my age when I told her - she was 49 I'm 66 but she thought I was 52. To be brief she constantly kept approaching me to cuddle, then kiss me etc. Everyone was laughing but I did feel uncomfortable. Now given the circumstances of me as an ex- so, and if I reported that "unwanted attention" to the Police, who believes that it would be taken seriously? Or if they did investigate, is it of a general opinion that I would still suffer because due to my offence being made public etc. As I mentioned above, I know the opinions of those attending about SO. Also she went back to the USA yesterday so would the Government (UK/USA) really care as in the case of Harry Dunn? I know there are so many paths from the intention of this "law" but I wonder what has been the depth and coverage of the research and the agenda behind all those wanting it! Well, to be honest, as this didn't happen in a public space it probably wouldn't be covered by the proposed law. Even so, the points you raise are interesting, and the MP who introduced the bill did say in his speech that men and boys can be victims as well, although the behaviour being targeted disproportionately affects women and girls. Hi As ever thanks for your words. As mentioned I raise it more from the "male" victim scenario and how pressure from others can escalate both a persons feelings and the action(s) of the other. As with another topic concerning my SOR start date, the interpretation of the scenario and societies rules and laws are driven by the "agenda" of others.
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
This scenario would not meet the test of threatening behaviour, unless it could be proven that they intended to cause distress, and that you felt there was a possibility of immediate violence. Whilst women can become violent, in these situations, it is probably unlikely, whereas if the harasser was a man, then there is arguably a much greater chance of it leading to violence. But the behavior described could absolutely be called harassment.
The other legislation which might apply, is the Protection from Harassment act 1997, which prohibits a person from pursuing "a course of conduct" which "amounts to harassment of another" and which "he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other". A person is taken to know that conduct is harassment if "a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other".
But the 1997 act requires the harassment to happen on two or more occasions, so if this was a one off, then it would not be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
AB2014
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.1K,
Visits: 7K
|
+x+xThe reporting of this has been somewhat misleading, because it suggests that these are new offences, but in fact things like following someone, wolf whistling, catcalling and persistent staring are already illegal under the Public Order Act. What is being proposed is making it a specific crime, if these behaviors are done for a particular reason. The motive is the most important thing, rather than the behaviour, although you would need to have both to be convicted. It is rather like the way that an offence such as assault, becomes more serious if it is racially motivated. None of the behaviours mentioned above are defined in law, but they all come under the definition of threatening behavior. There is no time limit on how long you have to stare at someone, in order for it to become 'persistent staring', for example. It is very much in the subjective opinion of the person being stared at. If you stared at them for 10 seconds and they felt threatened by that, then it would be threatening behaviour. But there is a defence, which is that the person doing the behaviour must intend to cause a threat and that is where most of these things would fall down. Most wolf whistling is not intended to make the person on the receiving end feel under threat. It also has to make the person think immediate violence is about to be used against them. So cat calling someone from 100 yards away is unlikely to led to immediate violence and will not be affected. Add to that the biggest problem, which is that most women don't bother to report these things anyway and I don't see that it will make much difference out on the streets. Hi As you accurately describe it is all relative to "behaviour", but importantly a person's perception of the other person's e.g. object v viewer. Not wishing to distract others from the post but I wish to expand the scenario beyond "staring" by looking at it as "behaviour". Saturday I went to a friend's home for social drinks with others. I am teetotal but still enjoy myself in the company of others who do. Most of the guests know I post here but I have not disclosed my offence as I know most there views on SO; but they respect me; though not understanding why I want to post or my supporting nature to SO. Present was an American woman who I had never met before who enjoyed her vodka and soda quite well. After a few she started to loudly express her views on me to everyone and would not believe my age when I told her - she was 49 I'm 66 but she thought I was 52. To be brief she constantly kept approaching me to cuddle, then kiss me etc. Everyone was laughing but I did feel uncomfortable. Now given the circumstances of me as an ex- so, and if I reported that "unwanted attention" to the Police, who believes that it would be taken seriously? Or if they did investigate, is it of a general opinion that I would still suffer because due to my offence being made public etc. As I mentioned above, I know the opinions of those attending about SO. Also she went back to the USA yesterday so would the Government (UK/USA) really care as in the case of Harry Dunn? I know there are so many paths from the intention of this "law" but I wonder what has been the depth and coverage of the research and the agenda behind all those wanting it! Well, to be honest, as this didn't happen in a public space it probably wouldn't be covered by the proposed law. Even so, the points you raise are interesting, and the MP who introduced the bill did say in his speech that men and boys can be victims as well, although the behaviour being targeted disproportionately affects women and girls.
=========================================================================================================
If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+xThe reporting of this has been somewhat misleading, because it suggests that these are new offences, but in fact things like following someone, wolf whistling, catcalling and persistent staring are already illegal under the Public Order Act. What is being proposed is making it a specific crime, if these behaviors are done for a particular reason. The motive is the most important thing, rather than the behaviour, although you would need to have both to be convicted. It is rather like the way that an offence such as assault, becomes more serious if it is racially motivated. None of the behaviours mentioned above are defined in law, but they all come under the definition of threatening behavior. There is no time limit on how long you have to stare at someone, in order for it to become 'persistent staring', for example. It is very much in the subjective opinion of the person being stared at. If you stared at them for 10 seconds and they felt threatened by that, then it would be threatening behaviour. But there is a defence, which is that the person doing the behaviour must intend to cause a threat and that is where most of these things would fall down. Most wolf whistling is not intended to make the person on the receiving end feel under threat. It also has to make the person think immediate violence is about to be used against them. So cat calling someone from 100 yards away is unlikely to led to immediate violence and will not be affected. Add to that the biggest problem, which is that most women don't bother to report these things anyway and I don't see that it will make much difference out on the streets. Hi As you accurately describe it is all relative to "behaviour", but importantly a person's perception of the other person's e.g. object v viewer. Not wishing to distract others from the post but I wish to expand the scenario beyond "staring" by looking at it as "behaviour". Saturday I went to a friend's home for social drinks with others. I am teetotal but still enjoy myself in the company of others who do. Most of the guests know I post here but I have not disclosed my offence as I know most there views on SO; but they respect me; though not understanding why I want to post or my supporting nature to SO. Present was an American woman who I had never met before who enjoyed her vodka and soda quite well. After a few she started to loudly express her views on me to everyone and would not believe my age when I told her - she was 49 I'm 66 but she thought I was 52. To be brief she constantly kept approaching me to cuddle, then kiss me etc. Everyone was laughing but I did feel uncomfortable. Now given the circumstances of me as an ex- so, and if I reported that "unwanted attention" to the Police, who believes that it would be taken seriously? Or if they did investigate, is it of a general opinion that I would still suffer because due to my offence being made public etc. As I mentioned above, I know the opinions of those attending about SO. Also she went back to the USA yesterday so would the Government (UK/USA) really care as in the case of Harry Dunn? I know there are so many paths from the intention of this "law" but I wonder what has been the depth and coverage of the research and the agenda behind all those wanting it!
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
The reporting of this has been somewhat misleading, because it suggests that these are new offences, but in fact things like following someone, wolf whistling, catcalling and persistent staring are already illegal under the Public Order Act. What is being proposed is making it a specific crime, if these behaviors are done for a particular reason. The motive is the most important thing, rather than the behaviour, although you would need to have both to be convicted.
It is rather like the way that an offence such as assault, becomes more serious if it is racially motivated. None of the behaviours mentioned above are defined in law, but they all come under the definition of threatening behavior. There is no time limit on how long you have to stare at someone, in order for it to become 'persistent staring', for example. It is very much in the subjective opinion of the person being stared at. If you stared at them for 10 seconds and they felt threatened by that, then it would be threatening behaviour.
But there is a defence, which is that the person doing the behaviour must intend to cause a threat and that is where most of these things would fall down. Most wolf whistling is not intended to make the person on the receiving end feel under threat. It also has to make the person think immediate violence is about to be used against them. So cat calling someone from 100 yards away is unlikely to led to immediate violence and will not be affected.
Add to that the biggest problem, which is that most women don't bother to report these things anyway and I don't see that it will make much difference out on the streets.
|
|
|
|