Keith Wibble

There wasn't anything worth nicking.

She's not suggesting any such thing, she's making a point. Do you think all the bile spewed into her inbox would have been tempered by her saying men should stay at home so women can go out safely ? Eckerslike.

Lol, I'm an ex football lad with 2 kids, one of them a daughter. Good attempt though.

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19157031.baroness-jones-defends-call-6pm-curfew-men-abduction-sarah-everard/

It was a response to comments blaming Everard for her own demise (and suggesting it should be women that don't go out at night) from an abduction off the street and murder at the hands of a policeman. You should listen again, it's pretty clear to me that she isn't proposing an actual curfew and she's said the same. Listen to the voice change at the key words and also the body language. It clearly changes tone and she clearly leans forward and exaggerates the movement of her mouth. Can you post the rest of the discussion for greater context specifically the bits she was responding to?

Eh? The difference being one became a national news story because a woman was abducted in the street and killed by a policeman who was unknown to her. Because of the elements involved it became a high profile story in the press which then gave space and opportunity for women to make a public statement. This story was not driven by people who attended the vigils, they were not the catalyst. They are very different cases. I accept there was a valid criticism about the press choosing the McCann child going missing over the black child who also went missing at the same time but there is something about stranger abductions and murders off the street that strikes fear into women as opposed to an internal dysfunctional family murder. In your story only immediate females in the family were at risk, in the Everard one it could have been anyone. Surely you see the difference?

Listen to the emphasis and tone used when saying that. It was a sarcastic jab at those saying women shouldn't be out on their own at night. She even explained this in a further statement.

Lol, no, you read the actual words and the context. Point two of yours, see point one of yours.

No one is calling for a curfew for men. What are the figures for Christians v Muslims on the deaths scale?

There you go again subtly changing the wording to reframe the debate to suit your argument. I said street attacks, not murders.

It was not a protest, it was a vigil. There is a massive difference and by your choosing to imply it was a protest frames it conveniently to fit your apparent issues with it. Your other tactic of trying make out I'm implying one group of victims take precedence over others is again reframing it to your advantage. I've already clearly set out my thinking about the imbalance in our society between women and men which is mostly cultural and the prevailing male dominated culture which affects many women. The issues are about power, who has it, how they got it, how they use it, and what ability is there for the rest of us to hold them to account. This power imbalance also encompasses class, race, minority groups, and socio economics. Dominant culture is the most powerful way to address such issues, change the culture including economic impact and you change outcomes. Protest changes everything. Take the poll tax. Women didn't get handed the vote out of a sense of moral duty. Every right working people have in this country was hard fought for. What are your solutions?

You were clearly suggesting, in a discussion prompted by Sarah Everard's murder, that some women are partly to blame for men attacking them. Your focus on the woman's part in an attack on them and not the men's part is interesting.

You were talking about street attacks and so was I.

It was a vigil. I suggest you read some witness accounts of it.

I'm wondering what you saw in Sarah Everard's behaviour that put her partly to blame for her own demise? What was it about her that enticed that copper to kidnap and murder her that had she done differently he would have changed his mind?

Your logic is astounding and it sounds almost as if you want to turn my defence of women as a de facto lack of defence, nay, attack on other groups. Somehow I don't buy your deep sense of social, class, or colour injustice. I think you just want to dilute women standing up for themselves. Oh, and for your information, I've spent most of my life working with and for those you attempt to portray me as demeaning or not recognising. So, here's a question for you: where have you supported those on the end of social injustices?

Your argument eats itself when you reference BLM because there was substantial involvement from white middle class women. I'm not sure why you keep citing reasons that sound line you object to women protesting at Clapham? Young Black men being assaulted by non young black men because they are young black men would be the similarity, but it isn't similar. There is not a unifying and historically repeated reason young black men get attacked by a group that is different anywhere on the scale men attack women.

There are religious exemptions across the piece. Most men do not get attacked randomly because they are men.

We get it, in this discussion about a man kidnapping and murdering a woman, you're the real victim. Get over yourself.

The main point here is that women are scared and they do not know if that man walking behind her is a good guy or a bad un. We know certain things about sex attackers. 1) It's motivated by power and not a need or desire for sex. 2) Offenders often build up to an attack and in this case that copper had exposed himself to women a few days before (his males colleagues though appear to not have done anything about it when reported). 3) Attackers displace responsibility onto the victim in order to avoid responsibility in their own heads. The purveying misogynistic culture that sees football crowds of men singing 'get you t1ts out for the lads', builders wolf whistling, ogling, and shouting out sexual comments, the Sun reducing an Oxford educated women down to her new makeover and coat just before she was going to respond to Sunak's budget, newspapers spewing out story after story of women in bikinis and commenting on their 'curves', and men telling women it's their fault if they are attacked, it all feeds into the attackers narrative that women are there for their gratification and are mere objects to be used. It's a lot easier for a sex attacker to self justify what they are doing as the women's fault and not theirs. We don't know that this copper set out to kill her, he might have just been upping his behaviour and it went wrong. What we need is a culture that is positive about women and teaching our kids this. It doesn't have to exclude appreciating looks etc as long as that's not the dominant narrative. A woman on the TV said something that struck me. She said she gets comments, jeers, and people flirting with her just going to the shops. She said I'm married with kids, I just want to be able to go to the shops without getting hassled by men. Another talked about the comments starting when she was 11 years old and it's no surprise when we've commercially sexuslised young girls. The DM and Sun often comment on the looks of children, Jesus, the Sun did a topless photo shoot of Sam Fox on her 16th birthday! Something's got to give.

You do know that this outpouring is because of a fairly major event that actually happened which has given space for the voices of women to be heard and it's not actually contrived? Also, most men who get attacked aren't randomly picked.

Given that sexual abuse is mostly around power and not sex why not but given the subject matter who cares about theoretical rabbits you set running.

You still haven't got that this woman wasn't seriously suggesting a curfew for men, she was challenging the prevailing thinking and putting the focus back on men because of the trolling men have done over this murder. The discourse needs to change because the narrative is the wrong way round regardless of the police's motivation, she was just making the point. Do the police ever advise men not to go out on their own at night because they might get beaten up? Your 'leaving property' unguarded analogies are nonsense and for this reason; women going about their lives have not acted neglegently. Sarah Everard was not acting negligently walking along the street at 9pm at night. Your analogies suggest that if you have your laptop stolen or your house burgled then it's your own fault. Being out on your own is not a woman's fault that leads to being attacked. In those analogies you are victim blaming. And yes, men have been blaming Sarah Everard without mentioning the murdering copper, just as your focus is attacking a woman for daring to suggest men are a problem but not the man who kidnapped and murdered Sarah Everard. Why would men feel the need to go on public forums after a women is kidnapped and murdered to offer their thoughts on what Sarah Everard did wrong? That's f****d up.

The serious case reviews identified that victims were often in Social Care and predominantly Inhabited the night time economy. This is why these grooming gangs are predominantly Pakistani. The vast majority of children in Social Care are there because their parents were unwilling or unable to care for them. In all abuse the abusers take advantage of opportunities to abuse or place themselves to increase those opportunities. There is something to be said about which cohort of girls hang about on the street at night and which often do not, what she said was factual. What she implied might be different of course. The distinction between child victims and adult victims, like I said, is vast. It is quite permissable to suggest children shouldn't be attending parties with men, drinking alcohol, taking drugs, hanging out on the street in the early hours but, and it's a big but, children have a different set of decision making skills to adults.

Hence the new Police and Crimes Bill.