Common Sense at last.

[sodthisforfun]

He wouldn’t, so the thump is the crime. The thump is assault.

But you are talking about a senario the didn't happen.
She didn't like his (sexual) advances, and she got thumped for it. So then it's linked.
To be thumped if she had consented after is either some kind of kinky strange perversion of his or assault.

Am sure she didn't ask for the sexual advances, nor the thump, simply because she happens to have a pair of tits.

 

[sodthisforfun]

No, I'm not.



Was he doing that because he hated her?


I think you are forgetting that it might have been be for the same reason.
Very un-PC of you.

1. It seemed like you were. "2 pints of beer has that effect on some men". It's downplaying their responsibility for their actions. Beer has nothing to do with it and not sure why you brought it up in the first place.
2. I don't see how thumping someone doesn't amount to hate. It certainly isn't an act of love now is it?
3, That's why I wrote "HAD". I wasn't being unPC, thanks, nor forgetting it may have been the same reason.

 

[sodthisforfun]

May I also add.
The views on here are being written by men. I am sure if men had had a long history of the **** women had to put up with, which still goes on today, there would be more understanding? I am not one for paper pushing or ticking right boxes, but perhaps it was time that women were included in hate crime. After all, often targeted just for the fact they own tits.

 

[noseall]

Was he doing that because he hated her?

No. He did it because he wanted a f**k and she said no. This made him want to do her harm because at that moment he hated her.

 

[sodthisforfun]

No. He did it because he wanted a f**k and she said no. This made him want to do her harm because at that moment he hated her.

Exactly.
He went to jail for 6 months, ordered to go to classes to learn about sexual and sexist violence.

 

[EFLImpudence]

1. It seemed like you were. "2 pints of beer has that effect on some men". It's downplaying their responsibility for their actions. Beer has nothing to do with it and not sure why you brought it up in the first place.

Because you asked "Is it normal for blokes who are rejected to suddenly turn violent?"

2. I don't see how thumping someone doesn't amount to hate. It certainly isn't an act of love now is it?

Is there nothing between love and hate?

3, That's why I wrote "HAD". I wasn't being unPC, thanks, nor forgetting it may have been the same reason.

You said "Had he thumped a bloke for no sexual reason, then it would be assault." which implies that if it were for sexual reasons it would not be assault.

A thump, as in this case, is assault - end of.
There doesn't have to be a different classification because the assaulted (clue in the word) person is a member of a designated group.

The same point I made about the burglary family - it was burglary; the offence doesn't change because of who owns the property.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No. He did it because he wanted a f**k and she said no. This made him want to do her harm because at that moment he hated her.

Even if that were correct, so what? He hit her - assault; offence - assault.


Surely "hate crime" has been invented to criminalise behaviour, which is not actually illegal in itself at the moment, because the "victim" does not like it and they and others think the perpetrator should be prevented from doing it - otherwise it would not have been necessary to invent it, would it?.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Say, for example, they make wolf whistling an offence of hate crime.
The perpetrator can be punished in law for whistling, even though no one has been hurt nor property damaged - just someone feels offended.

There is no right not to be offended.

1984 was a warning; not a manual.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Because you asked "Is it normal for blokes who are rejected to suddenly turn violent?"


Is there nothing between love and hate?


You said "Had he thumped a bloke for no sexual reason, then it would be assault." which implies that if it were for sexual reasons it would not be assault.

A thump, as in this case, is assault - end of.
There doesn't have to be a different classification because the assaulted (clue in the word) person is a member of a designated group.

The same point I made about the burglary family - it was burglary; the offence doesn't change because of who owns the property.

Ok, so the beer was you being flippant.

No, a thump is an assault, but it can be linked to other motivations. If someone is thumped because they are black, gay, transgender, whatever the it's an assault as a hate crime but it doesn't take away that it was an assault. If a women is thumped because she is a woman who doesn't want to sleep with you, why not include that as a hate crime? It's targeted and the woman can't help being a woman can she? No more than a black person be black.

If a family are targeted for burglary because of their ethnicity then it's a hate crime.

Times are changing. Perhaps a lot of it is PC rubbish, but perhaps some of it is needed to reflect our society today. Sorry you don't like it.

 

[sodthisforfun]

Say, for example, they make wolf whistling an offence of hate crime.
The perpetrator can be punished in law for whistling, even though no one has been hurt nor property damaged - just someone feels offended.

There is no right not to be offended.

1984 was a warning; not a manual.

You are like Philip Green.
"It's only banter".

As I said before, perhaps, just perhaps, after people not getting the message that to assault someone over their sex, orientation, skin colour isn't actually ok. People just don't seem to understand that it's not ok and that the law must be changed.

Someone being cat-called, leered at, smarmy sexual comments may be offensive to some women. Some women are reported to feel intimidated too. Could you think of what it's like to have intimidation again and again? Why do men have to do this anyway? It's not just about being offended, it's about being intimidated. Same when it's skin colour, sexual preferences, whatever.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Ok, so the beer was you being flippant.

No, it is a fact.

No, a thump is an assault, but it can be linked to other motivations. If someone is thumped because they are black, gay, transgender, whatever the it's an assault as a hate crime but it doesn't take away that it was an assault.

If that were the only motivation, it could be, but what is the pupose or advantage in it having to be termed a hate crime as well.

If a women is thumped because she is a woman who doesn't want to sleep with you, why not include that as a hate crime? It's targeted and the woman can't help being a woman can she? No more than a black person be black.

Presumably because the person doesn't actually hate her.

If a family are targeted for burglary because of their ethnicity then it's a hate crime.

Is that the motivation for burglary? You are hypothesising needlessly.

Times are changing. Perhaps a lot of it is PC rubbish, but perhaps some of it is needed to reflect our society today. Sorry you don't like it.

The brain washing is working.

 

[sodthisforfun]

The brain washing is working.

As we've got a bit personal with you implying I am brainwashed, I'd like to now mention that you are an older man who has trouble moving with the times. I've seen it before with your views about the use of words and their meanings and about women, how you speak of women and things like this. Not everything is the same as when you were a lad - some of that is a good thing, some of that is bad. But things are changing, and laws, descriptions whatever need to be changed to keep up with it. You can drag your heels, complain and moan all you like but it's not going to make any difference.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You are like Philip Green.
"It's only banter".

That depends, doesn't it on whether any one was physically assaulted.
Should actual banter be banned? What about between workmates?

As I said before, perhaps, just perhaps, after people not getting the message that to assault someone over their sex, orientation, skin colour isn't actually ok. People just don't seem to understand that it's not ok and that the law must be changed.

But now you are introducing all sorts of other things including racism.
The man in question thumped a woman; that's it - assault. The same as if he had thumped a copper.

Someone being cat-called, leered at, smarmy sexual comments may be offensive to some women. Some women are reported to feel intimidated too.

Ah, so how do we classify 'some'?
So, no one is allowed to offend anyone. Thought police next?

Could you think of what it's like to have intimidation again and again? Why do men have to do this anyway? It's not just about being offended, it's about being intimidated. Same when it's skin colour, sexual preferences, whatever.

It is about being offended and more likely others thinking someone else has been offended.


I remind you -

"Under her leadership, Nottinghamshire has become the first police force to class misogyny as a hate crime. This includes unwanted or uninvited sexual advances, physical or verbal assault, unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement, and use of mobile phones to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent." .

I suppose you agree with Chief Constables making up their own laws because she thinks it a good idea.

Good luck with that one.

 

[sodthisforfun]

That depends, doesn't it on whether any one was physically assaulted.
Should actual banter be banned? What about between workmates?


But now you are introducing all sorts of other things including racism.
The man in question thumped a woman; that's it - assault. The same as if he had thumped a copper.


Ah, so how do we classify 'some'?
So, no one is allowed to offend anyone. Thought police next?


It is about being offended and more likely others thinking someone else have been offended.


I remind you -

"Under her leadership, Nottinghamshire has become the first police force to class misogyny as a hate crime. This includes unwanted or uninvited sexual advances, physical or verbal assault, unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement, and use of mobile phones to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent." .

I suppose you agree with Chief Constables making up their own laws because she thinks it a good idea.

Good luck with that one.

Nobody has a right to say that feeling intimidated is banter. Intimidation isn't hurt feelings.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I did say, purposely, actual banter.

"Should actual banter be banned? What about between workmates?"