Post: #1

I just stumbled across a video on the BBC News, UK section, which reports on the crackdown by British Transport Police on the problem of sexual harassment on the Tube. This report starts by showing the beginning of what I assume is a TV campaign by the UK authorities highlighting the problem, with the words narrated by a woman, "The man in the grey suit is staring at you. Would you report it?". Now, the last time I checked, it wasn't illegal to stare at anybody in the UK and it constituted, at most, a social faux pas. After some searching around on the phenomenon of "stare rape", it quickly became clear, however, that "staring" at a woman is now to be categorized as a form of sexual harassment that is in and of itself worthy of being reported to the police.

Now, aside from the inherent ambiguity of what constitutes staring, I think it is truly horrifying the degree to which male sexuality is being controlled in the Anglosphere. Not only are women to be "protected" from men from approaching them in public on pain of being charged with either stalking, harassment or worse, but even the very act of glancing in a woman's direction for too long should now fall under the UK criminal penal code.

The noose is progressively tightening around the necks of males in this country and yet the reaction of most men is akin to the frog being slowly boiled in water, i.e., it is only when men are faced personally with false rape accusations (which would constitute nothing less perverting the course of justice by the woman when the allergation was in any other area) or similar charges that they will realize the sexual matrix that they find themselves caught up in.

I can also well imagine that men who are denounced for being "stare rapists" will be automatically placed on the sexual offenders register, which will have the consequence of effectively ruining the chances of those men from holding down careers in the future or from having any contact with children, since in the UK, it is not even necessary in certain cases that one be convicted of a sexual offence to find oneself blacklisted on this register.

Here's the clip for anybody that would like to see for themselves:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33984360

Post: #2

These laws would only apply for weirdos so I am not bothered at all.

Just 2 weeks ago, I was with 2 other friends on the tube (here in London) and a bunch of hot blonde girls came on it and stood next to us. I started touching the ass of one of the girls and when she looked at me, I looked at her as if I wanted to fuck her. I noticed this other girl next to us that didn't know her was staring at her hard. I asked her if she wanted some lesbian action because she is really looking at this girl, she was laughing and she said she does not get down like that, I told her I would jump in so she won't feel like a lesbian, all these girls were laughing and meanwhile I was touching the girl next to me ass.

I am sure that if I was a weirdo or giving out the wrong vibe, no way in hell I would get away with that.

Again, all these laws only apply for weirdos and guys with the wrong vibe.

Post: #3

(03-11-2016 02:24 PM)pitt Wrote:  These laws would only apply for weirdos so I am not bothered at all.

Just 2 weeks ago, I was with 2 other friends on the tube (here in London) and a bunch of hot blonde girls came on it and stood next to us. I started touching the ass of one of the girls and when she looked at me, I looked at her as if I wanted to fuck her. I noticed this other girl next to us that didn't know her was staring at her hard. I asked her if she wanted some lesbian action because she is really looking at this girl, she was laughing and she said she does not get down like that, I told her I would jump in so she won't feel like a lesbian, all these girls were laughing and meanwhile I was touching the girl next to me ass.

I am sure that if I was a weirdo or giving out the wrong vibe, no way in hell I would get away with that.

Again, all these laws only apply for weirdos and guys with the wrong vibe.

Are you sure about that? Only a few weeks ago we saw a completely fabricated charge of no less than rape that went right through the court system until thrown out by a jury brought against a male commuter for, at most, accidently brushing past a woman in public who obviously had an axe to grind against men. When you have the rabid feminist Chief Prosecutor in charge of the Department of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders and legislation enabling the criminalisation of men for simply glacing for "too long" in a woman's direction, the consequences are obvious for all willing to see, namely, that a woman with a mental instability or misandric axe to grind having a bad day is going to use this legal dispensation to see an innocent man, whom she has never even met before in her life let alone spoken with before, have his reputation and career ruined simply to satisfy her sense of petty and warped vengeance for having had the temerity to "stare" at her.

This sinister development should be of concern to all men, since it is the thin end of the wedge in fully criminalizing even the most innocent of flirtatious behaviour between men and women. But, I agree with your point that men who are perceived to be high status/highly attractive to women are unlikely to fall foul of this, given the hypocritical hamster rationalization of only finding unattractive male flirtation "creepy" and therefore objectionable.

Post: #4

Sounds like the UK is a feminist police state. It will only get worse until the UK can no longer pay to maintain it.

Post: #5

(03-11-2016 02:41 PM)bigrich Wrote:  Sounds like the UK is a feminist police state. It will only get worse until the UK can no longer pay to maintain it.

Incidentally, for anybody curious to know what Alison Saunders looks like, here is a picture:

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4...unders.jpg

Post: #6

(03-11-2016 02:44 PM)Feldeinsamkeit Wrote:  

(03-11-2016 02:41 PM)bigrich Wrote:  Sounds like the UK is a feminist police state. It will only get worse until the UK can no longer pay to maintain it.

Incidentally, for anybody curious to know what Alison Saunders looks like, here is a picture:

http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article4...unders.jpg

Exactly what I thought. A law created for weirdos, made or reinforced by women who never got laid as a young woman.

Post: #7

What if the "guy" accused of staring identifies as a female...

Post: #8

In the video, they portrayed the sexual harasser as a professional white man wearing a suit - I'm sure that generally fits the demographic of men most likely to assault women in public.

Post: #9

Ah the UK - probably one of the fastest growing police states in the world. Orwell and Huxley were amazingly prescient when they wrote their works decades ago.

So sad to see this stuff in the West now....it's getting worse and worse to the point you almost can't say or do anything anymore.

Post: #10

Wait, is that poster from the 1984 movie or is it real?

Post: #11

^
It is a real post 9-11 poster. Or perhaps post London bombings.

Never let a good crisis go to waste...

Post: #12

(03-12-2016 03:24 AM)Horus Wrote:  In the video, they portrayed the sexual harasser as a professional white man wearing a suit - I'm sure that generally fits the demographic of men most likely to assault women in public.

As a straight, law abiding professional who pays his taxes, looks after his family, donates to charity and doesn't break the law, I understand that I am the Boogeyman.

Genuine criminals, rapists, benefits scroungers, losers etc get a (cultural) pass just as long as they're not white.

Truth be damned. MSM, go to hell.

Post: #13

(03-11-2016 02:24 PM)pitt Wrote:  Again, all these laws only apply for weirdos and guys with the wrong vibe.

Weirdos, guys with the wrong vibe, and also any man who ticks a woman off. Or ticks off a man who can give her claims to make against you.

"I don't mind her holding that gun next to my head. Her finger's off the trigger, and she'd only shoot if I had the wrong vibe, anyway."

It's also clear that men who genuinely need to be reined in are left running wild. See: Rotherham.

These laws are insincere and exploitable. All they are is another weapon in the enemy's hands.

Post: #14

And who decides whether I've 'stared' or not? If she likes me it's sexy eye contact, if she doesn't I'm a sex offender?

I call the girls at work out on this all the time when they're complaining about some 'creep' for asking them out, looking at them or even daring to TALK to them: "If a handsome man did the EXACT same thing, would you call him a creep?"

"Erm...ah...umm"

"Well don't be too harsh on him then."

Post: #15

We should clarify what is a police state.

The UK is not a police state. For it to be a police state we need an actual police presence on our streets and dozens of armed officers at every major transport hub. This goes hand in hand with overwhelming surveillance.

We already have vans with cameras on them, police officers wearing body cams, CCTV and helicopters. This doesn't include the work of MI5 and other institutions conduct.

We have a surveillance state, with heavy-handed back up.

Criminals are not put off by CCTV unless it is a professional hit. They merely adapt to it and the police play catch up. A CCTV camera will not stop your wallet from being stolen, your face being smashed on the kerb by some drunk or stop a man from raping a woman.

Actual police presence and community relationships with the police is what keeps crime and criminality in check. CCTV only took off because of the HD revolution, high capacity storage and the natural need to snoop on others because they're nosey.

Post: #16

The hypocrisy is sickening. There is actually a website called http://tubecrush.net/ where women post images of men on the tube saying how hot and attractive they find them.

This from their about me section:

Quote:Welcome to Tube Crush™ where your chance encounter from the tube line can be shared on-line. This website was set up to pay ‘Homage to the Hommes’ on our infamous transportation infrastructure. Here you can view pages of Tube Crush™ guys going about their daily lives often not knowing the joy they bring to their fellow passenger admirers.

The premise is simple: ‘See, Snap, Share’. See a crush, discretely snap him with your phone or if you’re brave enough ask him to pose for you! Send your pic to us with your name (or alias), name of the tube line you were travelling on to share the guy candy with our many online followers.

Our fanbase browse our many photographs, add comments, rate other crushes and share with their friends – think of it as an underground admiration.

Now imagine if a guy created a website where he photographed women on the Underground and asked other guys to comment and rate them. The poor bastard would be hurled in front of a court, tried and probably send to prison, and labelled a 'creep', 'misogynist and 'pervert' for the rest of his life. Even if by some miracle he wasn't imprisoned, he would undoubtedly lose his job, lose the vast majority if not all of his friends and probably lose certain family members. But when these women do it, it's viewed as a joke, all good fun.

Ironically enough, copycat websites, except where men post pictures of women who they photographed, were taken down, as Tubecrush.com has the audacity of writing about.

Quote:If you have found yourself on this page its probably because you are looking for pictures of the fairer sex travelling on the tube. We don’t blame you, when Tubecrush hit the internet back in 2011 many copycat websites sprung up that imitated what we had set out to do but with just images of women. These sites were quickly taken down due to (amongst other reasons) public outcry at the sheer idea of men (or women for that matter) photographing women in a public place, (crazy we know) but the debate continued.

The double standards and hypocrisy are so brazen, that it's almost satire. not only are these women staring at these men, they are also taking photographs odd them. But men can now be reported for staring at women, and have their lives ruined (by the way, who decides what constitutes 'staring'? It's down the discretion of the woman isn't it, fuck.....) while when women, or anyone else for that matter, take a photo of a man going about his life, it's different.

Post: #17

When your country is completely overrun by third world invaders and rapists something needs to be done. Due to the fact that Anglosphere leaders are absolute morons that pander to the SJW mob, they institute a dumbass countermeasure such as anti-staring laws. Meanwhile, other-than-western passport holders who rape women and children with legal immunity have their cases swept under the rug while local men are prosecuted for the focal point of their eyes. These cases make the media, harsh penalties are administered and the dumbass populace is satisfied that the government is fighting sexual crime.

Post: #18

In the Deep South (USA), that sort of thing (looking at a woman for too long) got certain groups of men executed.

That bit of history probably eludes them, though. And they probably don't care.

Post: #19

These idiots who are triggered by staring better not go into an East Indian neighbourhood because those fuckers stare like crazy. There's a big Sikh area in Edmonton and when I drive or walk down there all these bobble head old dudes in turbans just stare at everyone, cultural thing I guess.

Post: #20

Many employee manuals now include "leering" as a form of sexual harassment.

Quote:In Birschstein v. New United Motor Manufacturing, an employee complained to her manager that a male co-worker was making unwanted sexual advances, sharing sexual fantasies about her and following her around the workplace.

After the co-worker´s manager warned him to leave the female employee alone, the co-worker never spoke to the employee again. Instead, he began staring at her several times each day. Uncomfortable with the staring, and unsatisfied with the employer´s response to her complaints, the employee filed a lawsuit.

The trial court initially dismissed the claims against the co-worker and the employer because it believed that simple staring could not create a sufficiently hostile work environment to justify liability. The Court of Appeal, however, disagreed and issued a strong opinion permitting the case to go to a jury.

The Court found the staring to be intimidating and retaliatory behavior, which was directed at the employee because she was a woman.

http://www.hr.com/hr/communities/labor_r...t_eng.html

Post: #21

The UK should just implement the Birka and get over it.

Post: #22

Reportable perhaps. But Prosecutable? Reminds me of that scene from 'The Judge':

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme...wo_people/

paraphrased:

Quote:a witness cannot testify as to what I saw.

Unless the person in question admitted it of course.

https://vine.co/tags/The_Judge




Sounds sensible but obviously it is Hollywood...

Any lawyers here with real world info on whether this is true or not?

Post: #23

(03-14-2016 01:08 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  Reportable perhaps. But Prosecutable? Reminds me of that scene from 'The Judge':

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comme...wo_people/

paraphrased:

Quote:a witness cannot testify as to what I saw.

Unless the person in question admitted it of course.

https://vine.co/tags/The_Judge




Sounds sensible but obviously it is Hollywood...

Any lawyers here with real world info on whether this is true or not?

It has nothing to do with a knowledge of the law in the abstract, but rather with how it works in practice for men. Given that we already have in several Anglosphere jurisdictions an inversion of the principle of innocent until proven guilty for offences that a man is being investigated or charged with, I could easily imagine a scenario in which the woman's claim that a man had been staring at her, despite the utter subjectivity of such a claim, would be sufficient for the police to launch an investigation. Just like with false rape allegations, the onus would then be on the man to prove that he didn't rape/stare/trigger precious snowflake/[insert alleged microaggression of choice in this space] through use of covert recording media.

Indeed, it was only because there was CCTV footage covering the spot where the "rape" took place that Mark Pearson, the alleged rapist, was seen to be wholly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The most disturbing aspect of his ordeal, however, is that fact that the prosecution had access to this footage from the very beginning and yet still decided to prosecute, knowing full well that there was not the slightest shred of evidence that the accuser was telling the truth. Still more damning, the footage actually demonstrated conclusively that his accuser was lying. That Mark Pearson's accuser was not prosecuted for attempting to pervert the course of justice is itself a scandal and demonstrates how a woman in the UK can make all manner of the most serious allegations against an innocent man and that she will never be held to account for doing so.

Post: #24

Post: #25

What fucking millennium is this? Last I checked, this isn't Victorian England anymore, where false Jack the Ripper accusations were commonplace.