20p - would you have?

[Daysleeper40]

So what would you do - tell them it was their fault in the first place - for going clubbing etc.

Nope - I tell them that no one has the right to violate someone else - but clearly not everyone cares what is right and wrong. We have to try to make good choices and do our best to keep ourselves safe.

Applies to our homes (you don't leave your front door wide open I assume?), our belongings (probably won't be leaving your purse / mobile phone sat on your dashboard in your unattended car?) and most importantly ourselves (get in the car with a drunk driver? jump over the gate at a level crossing? spend the night with a total stranger? walk home alone in the middle of the night?)

That's what I would say.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If you think you can control everything a 16 year old does you are living in an alternative world.

Here's the thing, legally a 16 year old can't go out drinking, so if a girl of that age goes out and gets herself drunk and then puts herself in a position of risk/danger whose responsibility is that?

It's either the girl's or her parents and as the girl is legally still a child, then the buck has to stop with the parents.

 

[jomantha]

I didnt say anyone was a bigot.

Problem with perpetuating rape myths and victim blaming is it is totally entrenched in our culture and most people dont even know they are doing it.

(and yes when I dont have small children running about I do leave door open if I am in).

 

[jomantha]

Here's the thing, legally a 16 year old can't go out drinking, so if a girl of that age goes out and gets herself drunk and then puts herself in a position of risk/danger whose responsibility is that?

It's either the girl's or her parents and as the girl is legally still a child, then the buck has to stop with the parents.

Isnt the age of criminal responsibilty 10 in the Uk and 12 in Scotland?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Isnt the age of criminal responsibilty 10 in the Uk and 12 in Scotland?

According to you though a 16 year old wouldn't be responsible if something happened to them whilst out drinking.

It's either one t'other, you can't have it both ways.

 

[jomantha]

If a 16 year old was raped/attacked/assaulted, the rapist/attacker/assaulter would be responsible, not the 16 year old or her parents?? And that would apply to any age. So I dont quite get the point you are trying to make.

 

[big soft moose]

Problem with perpetuating rape myths and victim blaming is it is totally entrenched in our culture and most people dont even know they are doing it.
.

can you honestly not see the difference between expecting people to take reasonable care of themselves, and blaming them

you are right of course that in an ideal world there would be no bad men or women and that the streets would be idyllically crime free, and it wouldnt matter that people took 'risks' (which in an ideal world wouldnt be risks at all)

However we all know that the world is far from ideal and there do exist those in society who will prey on those weaker than themselves

That being the case it makes more sense to take reasonable steps to protect yourself than it does to give all the choice to the potential perpetrator

 

[big soft moose]

If a 16 year old was raped/attacked/assaulted, the rapist/attacker/assaulter would be responsible, not the 16 year old or her parents?? And that would apply to any age. So I dont quite get the point you are trying to make.

The point hes making is that a 16 year old shouldnt be out drinking in nightclubs - period. Therefore if they are the parents are to blame for them being there. (together with the establishment which allows underage people entrance)

This is the point of disparity all along - you are talking about the 'blame' for the offence, which we all agree belongs soley with the perpetrator

we are talking about the responsibility for the circumstances leading up to the offence, which belongs at least partly with the victim (or in this hypothetical , the victims parents/nighclub owners)

 

[Splog]

If a 16 year old was raped/attacked/assaulted, the rapist/attacker/assaulter would be responsible, not the 16 year old or her parents?? And that would apply to any age. So I dont quite get the point you are trying to make.

What's the point in allocating blame if a young girl is raped or killed? Of course it's the attacker but the girl is either damaged.......... or dead!

 

[Flash In The Pan]

If a 16 year old was raped/attacked/assaulted, the rapist/attacker/assaulter would be responsible, not the 16 year old or her parents?? And that would apply to any age. So I dont quite get the point you are trying to make.

If you deliberately put yourself in danger and/or engage in illegal activities and end up getting hurt as a result then you have to take at least partial blame.

It's a sad fact that there are rapists and murderers out there. However, a sensible person would ensure they don't put themselves in harm's way and if that means not dressing in a certain way or not getting so drunk you aren't in control then unfortunately that's the way it has to be.

 

[jomantha]

Teenagers (especially older ones), are going to go out and drink, some are going to have one night stands, some arent. Some will have an excellent support network, parents who will collect them, friends who always move in groups, some wont be so lucky.

I once picked a girl of a toilet floor in London (many moons ago), she was wrecked, couldnt stand up, all her friends had left her.

I cleaned her up, gave a taxi driver some money, and sent her home, she kept asking, why are you helping me, where I come from, you wouldnt leave your worst enemy in that state.

I dont think if anything had happened to her, it would have been anyones fault expect the person who did it.

I dont understand how people dont see that this sort of view, that a 16 year can be in anyway responsible because someone murdered her, isnt harmful.

Yes we can take precautions, but its a sad fact of life, that this is the rarest type of crime.

Most people are fundementally decent, Im more interested in change that will reduce the numbers of victims, than in change that will shift who the victim is, if that makes any sense.

 

[jomantha]

if that means not dressing in a certain wayQUOTE]

Well that absolutely says it all.

 

[big soft moose]

What's the point in allocating blame if a young girl is raped or killed? Of course it's the attacker but the girl is either damaged.......... or dead!

so that other young girls can learn from it and not have the same experience - which is the point several of us have been making all along - if we soley blame bad luck for the circumstances that lead to victim meeting perpetrator then theres no reason for any potential victim to take precautions or act sensibly.

There is an implicit double standard in the way things are reported - if a young girl goes clubbing and takes exctasy and dies although the media may villify the 'evil dealers' who sold it to her the main message will be "don't take E" (think Leah Betts for example can anyone remember the name of the dealer who sold her the E ?)

if on the other hand a young girl goes clubbing meets the wrong guy and gets killed the focus is all on the perpetrator , and the message isnt - don't go home with random strangers

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I knew you'd pick on that

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be allowed/able to dress in any way they see fit, what I am saying is that if by dressing in a certain way you are deliberately putting yourself at risk then you are doing so by choice.

 

[jomantha]

I knew you'd pick on that

I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be allowed/able to dress in any way they see fit, what I am saying is that if by dressing in a certain way you are deliberately putting yourself at risk then you are doing so by choice.

You are saying the same thing in a different way, and of course I was going to pick up on it, because its massively offensive, as well you know. What you wear does not mean you are deliberately putting yourself at risk, 90 year olds get raped, women in Burqahs get raped.

 

[Splog]

If you deliberately put yourself in danger and/or engage in illegal activities and end up getting hurt as a result then you have to take at least partial blame.

It's a sad fact that there are rapists and murderers out there. However, a sensible person would ensure they don't put themselves in harm's way and if that means not dressing in a certain way or not getting so drunk you aren't in control then unfortunately that's the way it has to be.

Not quite the same thing!... but we had new guy at work who totally dismissed anything to do with H&S and his responsibilities. One day he was in a cherry picker about 150ft of the ground and decided to disconnect his safety line whilst working :shake: The guy operating the 'picker' *******ed him and brought him back down, when I asked him 'why had he done it as he could have fallen?' he said so what! ......... I'd sue

 

[Flash In The Pan]

You are saying the same thing in a different way, and of course I was going to pick up on it, because its massively offensive, as well you know. What you wear does not mean you are deliberately putting yourself at risk, 90 year olds get raped, women in Burqahs get raped.

I don't recall making any comments about any other situations where a rape or assault may occur, I find it deeply offensive that you are constantly twisting what I write.

Let me paint a similar scenario using non-sexual imagery - up here there is a problem with sectarianism and people have been murdered for simply wearing the wrong football top in the wrong area.

So, knowing that there is a possibility that you may come to harm if you wear the wrong top in the wrong area, would a sensible person deliberately do so and also get themselves so drunk that they are unable to protect themselves?

 

[Splog]

so that other young girls can learn from it and not have the same experience - which is the point several of us have been making all along - if we soley blame bad luck for the circumstances that lead to victim meeting perpetrator then theres no reason for any potential victim to take precautions or act sensibly.

There is an implicit double standard in the way things are reported - if a young girl goes clubbing and takes exctasy and dies although the media may villify the 'evil dealers' who sold it to her the main message will be "don't take E" (think Leah Betts for example can anyone remember the name of the dealer who sold her the E ?)

if on the other hand a young girl goes clubbing meets the wrong guy and gets killed the focus is all on the perpetrator , and the message isnt - don't go home with random strangers

You've missed the point I was trying to make..... I was agreeing, just saying that once it's happened, it's happened and no turning the clocks back or restarting some stupid computer game. If someone is stupid enough to take the attitude that they can do as they please because if something happens it's not their fault then ultimately they will suffer the consequences!

 

[big soft moose]

I dont understand how people dont see that this sort of view, that a 16 year can be in anyway responsible because someone murdered her, isnt harmful.

and I don't understand how people don't see that not expecting a 16 year old to take responsibility for their own actions is harmful - in the example you mention would you really advise any 16 year old girl to get so drunk they can't stand and are totally reliant on the mercy of strangers ?

Yes we can take precautions, but its a sad fact of life, that this is the rarest type of crime.

Point that this misses is that precautions extend to any type of crime , yes "stranger lurking in the alley wearing the black ski mask" is extremly rare - but for example date rape by drink spiking isnt (whether thats Rohypnol, GHB, or pure spirits) so it still makes sense to watch your drink , don't let strangers buy you drinks that you don't see poured, if you start feeling funny don't let a stranger take you outside, dont let a stranger take one of your freinds outside in similar circumstances etc and so on

Of course that occurs it is still the fault of the perpetrator , but that doesnt mean you shouldnt take precautions

Ditto with a lot of consent/non consent date rape - it results from going home or generally being alone with people that you don't know well enough to trust

For example when I was at uni I remember taking one girl back to halls who was totally out of her tree on spirits (it was her birthday and she'd 'intelligently' done 19 shots to celebrate), in her inebriated state she was quite 'freindly' but it just wouldnt have been right, so I put her to bed and went and crashed in the common room - fortunately for her i'm too much of a gentleman to take advantage of a girl in that state - but with a different guy that could easily have become a "she consented" / "no I didnt" type situation

I'm more interested in change that will reduce the numbers of victims, than in change that will shift who the victim is, if that makes any sense.

I broadly agree - I would like to nail rapists and child molesters to a tree by their scrotum then leave them to choose between dying of starvation and ripping their balls off - that would sharply cut down on reoffending

 

[jomantha]

I don't recall making any comments about any other situations where a rape or assault may occur, I find it deeply offensive that you are constantly twisting what I write.

This is a thread about rape, so of course I am going to read your comments in that context.

 

[jomantha]

I broadly agree - I would like to nail rapists and child molesters to a tree by their scrotum then leave them to choose between dying of starvation and ripping their balls off - that would sharply cut down on reoffending

And there I agree!!!!!!

And with that I am off to bed, spent far too long banging this drum as it is.

Such a sad topic and seemingly with no answers.

 

[gramps]

This is a thread about rape, so of course I am going to read your comments in that context.

Actually no, it's my thread and it's about whether or not folks would have given 20p to avoid the girl having to miss the last bus home!

 

[jomantha]

and I don't understand how people don't see that not expecting a 16 year old to take responsibility for their own actions is harmful - in the example you mention would you really advise any 16 year old girl to get so drunk they can't stand and are totally reliant on the mercy of strangers ?

One last comment before I hit my pillow, I try and go down the self respect angle with ours, that someone with respect for themselves doesnt behave like this and that it wont leaving you in a good space emotionally or physically. I also impress on them that they are responsible (gender regardless) for ensuring any partner they have knows what they are doing and has the ability to consent to any activity taking place.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

This is a thread about rape, so of course I am going to read your comments in that context.

Interesting that you only addressed part of my post. I wonder why?

 

[jomantha]

Because you introduced another offensive rape myth into the thread and also because if I had addressed the rest of your post, I would merely have been repeating myself.

Prostitution for example is illegal, doesnt mean prostitutes are asking to be raped.

And now I am really off to bed, because this could go on all night.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Because you introduced another offensive rape myth into the thread and also because if I had addressed the rest of your post, I would merely have been repeating myself.

Ah ok, not because you realise that you were wrong then

 

[jomantha]

Ah ok, not because you realise that you were wrong then

Cant resist.

No, I dont think challenging out dated, rape myths is ever wrong.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Cant resist.

No, I dont think challenging out dated, rape myths is ever wrong.

Umm, I think you (and at least one other person aren't quite grasping what I'm saying.

I am not, regardless of what you may think, saying that I think a young girl, scantily clad, who goes out under-aged drinking is "asking for it" or however you want to put it.

The sad situation is that nowadays we live in a society where many (particularly young) men, brought up on a diet of softcore "lads" mags and internet pornography, objectify women.

If young girls then go out dressed in similar attire to the women (who are always seemingly "up for it") in the magazines then you are inevitably going to end up with a situation whereby a small minority of these men will see them as being one and the same.

The problem is one that ultimately needs addressing at a societal level, however the point I was trying, but obviously not succeeding, to put across was that knowing such a risk exists the onus is on the individual not to put themself in a position where they are exposed to it.

It's not about whether young girls should be able to wear "provocative" clothing or whether they should be able to walk, unmolested down a deserted street in the middle of the night (obviously in both cases they should), it's about the fact that men, and I use the word loosely, the likes of the one who attacked that girl in Nottingham, are out there and it's best, if at all possible, not to make oneself an easy "target".

 

[Yv]

Mod hat On/

Just a quick reminder to keep the debate as it is atm, a debate with some strong but politely worded arguments. This thread makes some interesting reading, lets keep it that way and make sure it doesn't get personal.


Mod Hat Off/

As a mother of 2 daughters, now grown up but still young, I do see where many of the comments here are coming from, on both sides of the debate. As Flash says in his last post, and Moose in an earlier one, I always tried to impress upon them the need to try and avoid situations where they would be particularly vulnerable to the tiny minority of scum intent on ill-deeds. Part of growing up is about learning to take responsibility for yourself and this is just part of it. To be aware of what constitutes 'higher risk' too, that can really only come from parents and I doubt there is a parent on here that hasn't tried to educate their kids on what they are. In an ideal world, every woman should be able to to be anywhere without the danger of being molested or worse, much worse, but that isn't the society we live in.




Now to the original question - the 20p - would I? Every cell in my brain screams yes of course, but a couple in my heart say 'maybe' - none of us can know for sure, 100% that we would have done unless we were there, at that particular time on that particular night. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we can all have pretty lousy days where it seems the whole world is against us and somebody else problem is exactly that, someone elses. :|

 

[onomatopoeia]

Prostitution for example is illegal

This is a common misconception. Prostitution is not illegal in England and Wales (I don't know of Scots law is different in this regard) and never has been.

It is difficult to practise without breaking some other law, but the exchange of sex for money between two consenting adults is not a crime.

 

[specialman]

The inconsistent grammar and punctuation in this thread made that a hardvery eight pages to read...

Anyway, to address the OP, I would have gladly given the girl the 20p she needed.

 

[Gremlin]

Now to the original question - the 20p - would I? Every cell in my brain screams yes of course, but a couple in my heart say 'maybe' - none of us can know for sure, 100% that we would have done unless we were there, at that particular time on that particular night. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we can all have pretty lousy days where it seems the whole world is against us and somebody else problem is exactly that, someone elses. :|

I had my faith put in doubt a couple of time recently one being a Big Issue seller.
Not a paper I ever want to read but I always admired those that stand in the street selling them, at least they are doing something, until recently, I gave a guy selling them the money and a couple of days later saw him suited up driving a nearly new Mercedes :bang:
Seems I may not have been the only one as he no longer seems to be in his usual spot.
Would I have helped the girl out, yes if I was in a position to do so and it could be that the other passenger also had just enough to pay their bus fare home after a night put :shrug:

 

[joescrivens]

The inconsistent grammar and punctuation in this thread made that a very eight pages to read...

spot the irony in your post

 

[specialman]

spot the irony in your post

When in Rome

If I'm not making mistakes myself, OSX and that bleeding' autocorrect is making them for me. I think smoke signals might be a more effective form of communication. Anyway, I have an excuse for my faux pas, seeing as I'm off me teets on Lemsip because I have the worst case of man flu on record

EDIT: see what it's done - it's put a 'g' on the end of bleedin'.... grrrr!!!!

 

[joescrivens]

When in Rome

If I'm not making mistakes myself, OSX and that bleeding' autocorrect is making them for me. I think smoke signals might be a more effective form of communication. Anyway, I have an excuse for my faux pas, seeing as I'm off me teets on Lemsip because I have the worst case of man flu on record

EDIT: see what it's done - it's put a 'g' on the end of bleedin'.... grrrr!!!!

i turned off autocorrect in osx, just have it on my idevices