Should the UK pay a divorce bill from the EU ?

The title says it all

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • No

    Votes: 15 71.4%

  • Total voters
    21
There seems to be some confusion about the equality act which covers sexual harassment in the work place and the general protection from harassment act.

There is no law preventing you for asking someone out on a date or even more crudely asking directly for sex. They can play hard to get and you may persist.

It becomes harassment when the conduct causes alarm or distress. It's different in the work place.
 
Sponsored Links
Because you have to work with them, and you can't just walk out of your job to get away with them; you are effectively trapped in a situation where you have no control, and that increases the stress etc. In a pub etc, you can leave, or even ask the landlord to chuck the other person out if they are drunk. But you can't do that at work, especiialy if it's you're boss doing it.
 
Sponsored Links
OK - so it's down to the reaction of the women whether it is an offence or not.

I think that is the point I am making.

Is vice versa also an offence - or only if the 'boss' is alarmed or distressed?



It is far from as clear cut as people are making out.
 
No. it's specific to workplace legislation. The equalities act in this case. It simply doesn't apply beyond the workplace (well it does a little bit)

But other examples might be good too
 
And therein lies the problem of a lot of these current laws. Someone only has to feel upset by say, a comedians jokes, even though the rest of the audience laughed their heads off, and rather than tell the person to get a sense of humour, they have to investigate the supposed offence.

With sexual harrasment, a women (and a man nowadays) only has to feel offended, rather than take it as a compliment that someone actualy wants them, and it has to be investigated. Unfortunately, the police have now been told that they have to beleive the complainant, rather than investigate to see if there has been a justifiable case. Women who cry rape, are believed, and the perp automatically arrested, then they have to prove their innocense.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence, so in effect, most people accused of a sexual harrasment, rape, homophobic offence, or anything of that nature, are now having their rights under article 11 trampled on.
 
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence, so in effect, most people accused of a sexual harrasment, rape, homophobic offence, or anything of that nature, are now having their rights under article 11 trampled on.
It makes you wonder why people detained on remand
 
With sexual harrasment, a women (and a man nowadays) only has to feel offended, rather than take it as a compliment that someone actualy wants them, and it has to be investigated. Unfortunately, the police have now been told that they have to beleive the complainant, rather than investigate to see if there has been a justifiable case. Women who cry rape, are believed, and the perp automatically arrested, then they have to prove their innocense.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence, so in effect, most people accused of a sexual harrasment, rape, homophobic offence, or anything of that nature, are now having their rights under article 11 trampled on.
What a load of twaddle.

No offense blokes but you sound like you want to go back to the dark ages where it was ok to goose a woman, or leer and invade her personal space? Or keep asking her out until you get the answer you want? You are feeling worried now that women may get upset? There is a line, if blokes are worried then simply do not cross it. If a woman says no to a date that's the end of it. No sane women is offended by being asked on a date. However, if you keep harassing, asking, leering, flirting after a 'no' then you are very much the problem in this situation, not the woman's reaction.
rather than take it as a compliment that someone actualy wants them
Claptrap. Unless the blokes cannot take no for an answer and keep asking.

Women have for years put up with absolute crap from men, some still do around the world, so I for one and proud that things that were harassment are becoming unacceptable. In my late teens and early 20's, and not including the rubbish I encountered by the hands of men in the pub, I myself have been pinned up against a wall at work with the blokes hand where it shouldn't be, I have had another bloke, my boss, make non-stop leery comments and his hands all over me FOR A YEAR. It wore me down, I dreaded work. When I complained higher up on both instances, the blokes were genuinely offended and upset that I found their attention unwanted, despite me previously quietly asking them to stop. I asked them to stop, they didn't. It's about time blokes learned that 'no', or 'stop' means exactly that - anything else is harassment, not women being hysterical.

And Doggit, please. Women have notoriously not reported rape for years, instead the perps getting away with it and pretty much never reported sexual harassment because nobody would believe them or blame the women for what happened - their skirt is too short, they drunk too much, they walked home alone at night etc.

Still today rape it is a woefully unreported crime and results in fewer convictions than many other criminal acts. Attitudes towards women have been awful for hundreds of years. Stop talking as if women are precious, hysterical creatures who are easily offended. No, women have just had enough of the **** - learn the difference and learn how times are changing, sadly too slowly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That may be true but can you not see the problem with a crime being defined by the alarm and distress of the would-be victim?

No one has answered my question:

Do all people have the same alarm or distress levels?

If the answer is no, then the crime must have defined criteria.



Also, once a group achieves (at least some level of) emancipation the reverse behaviour is allowed for fear of further upset.
 
Blightymam:

Would you be more tolerant of persistence from George Clooney than some creepy-looking bloke?
If so, is the creepy bloke guilty of an offence?



Also, you are replying by quoting examples of extreme behaviour which is obviously wrong whereas my question just relates to proper behaviour viewed as what may be unwanted but reasonable.
Genuinely interested - it doesn't affect me personally - too old.
 
No, people have different levels, of course they do.
Surely tho if a women is offended over being asked out, once and nicely, then that will be found out and no charges happen?

I seriously can't think that most women would be offended on being asked out - once. I think what is the problem here is the very real way men think - that unwanted flirting, innuendos, date requests is ok and it's supposed to be flattering, or as Doggit says, a compliment? Sure, perhaps some women will be able to shrug or laugh it off, done it myself, but why in all honesty, should women have to? If men just listened to a 'no' in the first place this wouldn't be an issue.

Why is it that nearly all rape/harassment cases are made against men?
 
No one has answered my question

Sorry EFL, that's what I was trying to do - okay, in a bit of a roundabout way.

If the answer is no, then the crime must have defined criteria.

That's the problem, the old idea of a criteria to define if there has been a crime, has been replaced by the notion that as someone feels offended (whether reasonable or not) then a crime must have been commited.

Also, once a group achieves (at least some level of) emancipation the reverse behaviour is allowed for fear of further upset.

Well spotted; that's exactly what's happened.
 
Blightymam:

Would you be more tolerant of persistence from George Clooney than some creepy-looking bloke?
If so, is the creepy bloke guilty of an offence?



Also, you are replying by quoting examples of extreme behaviour which is obviously wrong whereas my question just relates to proper behaviour viewed as what may be unwanted but reasonable.
Genuinely interested - it doesn't affect me personally - too old.
My extreme quotes are in response to Doggit. "Compliment' is exactly the old fashioned viewpoint that made blokes think it's ok.


As for George Clooney if it's unwanted it doesn't matter. I understand what you are saying, and of course it can depend on who it is. Would you mind if some model gave you some attention? But if anyone, even George kept asking and someone said no, then they're in the wrong.
 
That's the problem, the old idea of a criteria to define if there has been a crime, has been replaced by the notion that as someone feels offended (whether reasonable or not) then a crime must have been commited.

As far as I know that the court and it's peers is what decides if a crime has been committed, not the person who feels offended.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top