Sarah Everard

I will never understand why anyone thinks making comments like that to a woman are acceptable at all. With a lot of things I don't always agree with it but can at least see the messed up reasoning behind it. Completely disagree with football hooligans but can understand why in their heads it's us against them blah blah blah. Against sexism but can see why a man would resent women and visa versa due to perceived things 'they' have easier than them.
I completely disagree but can at least sort of see why they think it. But when it comes to shouting sexual comments to a woman I don't even know I cannot think of even think of any reason why anyone would do it and yet it seems to be so common. Completely bonkers.

 

Its all about context. Youll know yourself that there will be Mavis in the office who you can have risqué banter with and its exactly that. You know going upto a woman in the street and say suck my **** isnt going to get you far in life.

The problem is in society as a whole where the entire lines about what is acceptable and when.

Until we start looking at these areas then nothing will change.

 

Oh I fully agree that when you know each other it's different as you learn what is and isn't acceptable? Mavis is absolutely filthy
I was meaning more the comments to complete strangers which we all know aren't acceptable yet seem to be said often

 

Because its how they see women.

Somewhere on one of these many threads is a comment about porn never going away.

Theres a big difference between the tits and fanny porn we saw as kids and what you can access within 30 seconds of googling.

 

But why on earth would you want to have 'risque banter' with anyone?

What determines 'offensive language' is not how the person it is directed at reacts to it.

Offensive language is offensive. Absolutely nothing to do with 'context.'

 

Why wouldnt you if that was within the context of your relationship with that person?

Remember what you find offensive isnt necessarily what someone else would find offensive.

 

I'll tell you for why. Because Mavis may not be the only one listening to that conversation. What about the young girl in the office who has just started and may be thinking "Jeez - am I expected to join in that sort of talk"? It's indicative of a wider disrespect for women and from that casual attitude many other bad things flow. What if the young girl was your daughter?

No doubt the usual brigade will fire up with "woke!" and other perceived insults, but times are changing and I think we older folk have a duty to change with them.

 

Not to mention Mavis, who upon going home perhaps can finally drop the act she's having to perform at work to fit in with the "lads"

 

Fair point...just seen this. Suitably chastened!

 

again the High Court deemed the vigil legal unless the police after consultation with its organisers could proved it was not proportionate. They clearly stated that there cannot be a blanket ban on protests or vigils and the MET states it wasn’t operated a blanket ban. The met after the hearing made no attempt to contact the organisers so with the courts instructions you would have to believe that they had agreed proportionality without doing so as they couldn’t refuse it without engagement.

 

Love the line an actress can’t have an opinion must automatically be lying and deliberately instigated an attack on her by police. Not sure why someone’s profession should have any impact on their experiences as a woman.

 

Well it's the video that shows she was lying that makes her a liar to be honest

 

The problem here is that you have just assumed that because Mavis is a woman she cannot enjoy certain things and have assumed she's just doing it to fit in.

In reality there are three mavis's in our office. Two were there when I started and when I was shown around I was told 'watch Mavis one and two, they'll eat you alive'. Both have calendars of men in their underwear on their desks.
The third Mavis joined a few years later and will make comments about any man who happens to visit. Not to their face but to everyone else after they've gone.

So there's no act from the women, they aren't being persuaded by the men, it's completely the opposite really. There's only one Mavis (the mysterious fourth Mavis who has now left) who I did really engage in the banter with and that went both ways and was really relaxed and friendly. She knew I didn't mean anything with what I said and I knew she didn't.

As for the fact a shy office girl may overhear well I completely agree with that, I don't think it goes just for this kind of thing but in general you adjust your behaviour and what you say depending on whos around. If you don't do that and you say things with earshot that may offend or simply just annoy or make someone feel uncomfortable then you are a tool. My conversations with Mavis the 4th mainly took place in the carpark, kitchen, filing office or just in the main office after hours, very rarely would anything be said at the desk and never with anyone around who could be offended.

 

I said "perhaps".

So your diatribe wasn't needed.

 

Yes, an assumption that perhaps the woman was faking it.

 

It wasn't an assumption. I said perhaps. I didn't assume anything.

It's nice to see though, that yet again this thread has descended into what men feel they should be allowed or want to do, just like DWLC said a few pages back rather than the real subject at hand.

 

Well actually my reply was more a case of what women want to do.

The subject at hand is awful, no woman should suffer violence at the hands of a man or suffer sexual harrassment or abuse or anything lie that ever. I don't think anyone at al has disagreed with that sentiment

 

I see where you're coming from. I do believe the High Court threw out the vigil organisers' appeal because the judge effectively agreed with the police's interpretation of the current law. That was my reading of things hence that's why I believe the vigil should have been delayed. I could be in error but I'm not sure I am.
Of course with the new legislation going through there will be no right to protest soon

 

When questioned the police confirmed that they hadn’t been implementing a blanket ban (though the evidence would seem to indicate otherwise). So there was no need to hear the case from the organisers. The police were given a clear instruction to engage meaningfully with the organisers to determine whether it should go ahead. The organisers QC Wagner states that no engagement took place.