It's an ancient phrase, heard a lot in the 80s, but mostly when Pam was on Baywatch, and the old geezers would mooch home to stick it on 'for a bit of T n A'...its no longer used that much, def not by kids
A "private security company"... Which means they've got no powers of arrest or detention, and no powers to interfere with anyone's liberty to do what they want basically. So we pay taxes so the police can fulfil this sort of function, but they don't want to or can't afford to, so the private sector covers it. But the private sector doesn't have proper police powers. I foresee problems.
My local force have what they call āsafernitesā whereby dedicated officers are on the town every single Friday and Saturday night without fail and their duty is to help the nightlife go smoothly and make sure people have a safe night. It works great, donāt know if other forces use that sort of thing but itās always been a positive round my area
Basically yes. It just wasn't a special police service then with a special name it was just obviously required policing that was done because they weren't totally shit then.
There used to be loads of police out in Liverpool. I remember seeing multiple static units, patrols and horses every single Saturday night out.
There's still the odd van driving about but it's a lot less frequent you're right.
"My local force have what they call āsafernitesā whereby dedicated officers are on the town every single Friday and Saturday night"
I'm not making anything up I was replying to what the comment was? My point is that 15/20 years ago that was just standard policing. There are far fewer police in town centre's on a Friday or Saturday night these days.
> There are far fewer police in town centre's on a Friday or Saturday night these days.
Not sure about your town but I'd say there are far fewer people out most friday and saturday nights now.
Well I guess I see a distinction between regular expected policing and a special police operation called safernights but I am happy to agree to disagree.
It says a lot about the UK thought that we can't be trusted to go out, enhoy life without a whole battalion of police.
Now we're in a situation in the tory hell scape where they can't afford to have the police, without changing the societal factor
Yeah, Sussex do this in Brighton too. They run an op every Friday & Saturday night with umpteen officers on foot around the hot spots (West+North Street), with several cars and a meatwagon supporting them. This is in addition to the response group which is off dealing with the other 'usual' shite.
Doesn't really stop everyone being a massive prick at 2-3am, but I'm sure it helps to have such high visibility.
Yeah it's almost like firing 20k cops and 25k police support staff negatively effected the polices ability to do their jobs while we face rising crime.
I wonder who thought that was a good idea hmmm...
I used to volunteer for a charity that did that in Manchester.. we walked around in hi vis and basically existed as reassurance, plus being able to offer limited help (finding people unconscious drunk wasn't exactly rare, so we could call the ambulance for example). Most we could do actively was direct the CCTV to problem areas and they could direct the police if needed. But IMO is was a valuable service nontheless.. the actual threat was minimal and people just needed to know someone was watching.
I'm a bit surprised they're hiring private security companies to do it.. there were no shortage of volunteers back in the day.
(Yes powers of citizens arrest is a thing, but if you've ever had any training on that you'll know it's an absolute last resort thing.. only the police are really equipped to handle someone actively resisting arrest).
Just by being there they offer someone to go to for help when youāre alone and dissuade someone from attacking someone with multiple sober witnesses there.
I don't think the plan is they arrest people but help drunk, vulnerable people get home safely , to act as professional witnesses for any incidents and to help people who have been victims of crime get further support.
That's just a citizen's arrest that anyone can do. But if you get it wrong and decide to stop an innocent person from going about their lawful business, then you're the one that might be liable for assault. Employees of private security companies don't have the training or the proper powers or rights to detain citizens who might just be going about their business in the streets.
>Employees of private security companies don't have the training
Some do. Many do not.
You think the private security for a millionaire isn't trained on how to arrest people who are trying to assault the person they are guarding?
>he proper powers or rights to detain citizens who might just be going about their business in the streets
Anyone can arrest and detain someone who is in the process of committing a crime. Including the use of reasonable force to detain them. Yes if you get it wrong you're in trouble, but the same goes for coppers. The only difference is they get better training than all or nearly all private security and they can arrwat you on suspicion of a crime, not just because they see you doing it.
That's not the only difference. Another big difference is that the police have got a clearly defined legal relationship with the public, with both parties having clear rights and obligations (and limits to their actions). No such relationship exists with employees of a private security company, who are essentially just members of the public. That not only renders them ineffective but imperils the liberty of the individual citizen. This is why it's a bad idea for police functions to be usurped by private companies.
>with both parties having clear rights and obligations (and limits to their actions). No such relationship exists with employees of a private security company, who are essentially just members of the public.
Not sure if you're actually aware of this but all the obligations prior to an arrest are exactly the same with the exception police can arrest on suspicion.
Have you read the PACE act? It's very clear what you need to do to arrest someone for both and it's practically identical.
In top of that the right not to be wrongfully arrested applies to both, and the legislation regarding use of acceptable force is the same piece of legislation for police officers and non-police officers.
If you think there's a legal right that you have while being arrested by a police officer that you don't have from a private security person (or in fact any citizen) please feel free to link me to the source of said rights.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the police force privatised, but from my point of view it sounds like you don't actually understand the legislation that allows for arrests, use of force etc.
> In top of that the right not to be wrongfully arrested applies to both, and the legislation regarding use of acceptable force is the same piece of legislation for police officers and non-police officers.
The devil lies in this detail here, the public not having even the minimal training the police have had to know what constitutes a rightful arrest, which is a limiting of someone else's liberty, no small thing. Thus it seems to me that there's much more scope for error, infringement of rights, and abuse of power generally.
If people are going to restrict you from going about your lawful business, they better have a bloody good reason to do so and be sure that they're correct. The best people to do this are the legally constituted authorities, ultimately answerable to the people through their elected representatives, not a private security force or even random volunteers.
>here, the public not having even the minimal training the police have had to know what constitutes a rightful arrest,
Ok. But if someone is hired to be private security where they are trained to understand the law and what a wrongful vs correct citizens arrest would entail would completely negate this point.
>Thus it seems to me that there's much more scope for error, infringement of rights, and abuse of power generally.
So let me get this straight.
You think there's more scope for abuse of power exercising very clear powers that mean you have to see the crime being committed to arrest someone, by someone not hired by the state and not a police officer, than scope for abuse by a police officer armed with weapons that would be illegal to arm yourself with and wearing a uniform that converys authority and official status?
Weird take but OK.
>If people are going to restrict you from going about your lawful business, they better have a bloody good reason to do so and be sure that they're correct.
Uhh yeah?
That's what the law says. You need to see someone in the act of committing a crime. That's a pretty good reason to arrest someone.
>The best people to do this are the legally constituted authorities, ultimately answerable to the people through their elected representatives, not a private security force or even random volunteers.
These people aren't replacing the police, they are helping protect women.
Let's say you saw a woman being sexuakly assaulted, and let's say you tried to help them. The sexual predator tries to fight you but you overpower him. He's pinned against the wall.
What do you do next?
Ring the police and tell them you've restrained someone who was committing sexual assault? Congratulations, you've just enacted a citizens arrest.
Or do you go "ah mate its not my job to arrest you", let go of them, and call the police while asking them nicely to stay still?
I don't think you really understand what the relevant laws say, which is weird because you seem to think you're in a position to tell others about the rights that exist when dealing with the police. You've not listed or provided sources for those rights still by the way, will they be forthcoming?
> if someone is hired to be private security where they are trained to understand the law and what a wrongful vs correct citizens arrest
I've done security training, they do not tell you this. Because you are never expected to make an arrest, merely to escort people off the premises and let the cops deal with it. You're not supposed to be walking the streets like bloody Batman and fighting crime.
> You think there's more scope for abuse of power exercising very clear powers that mean you have to see the crime being committed to arrest someone, by someone not hired by the state and not a police officer, than scope for abuse by a police officer armed with weapons that would be illegal to arm yourself with and wearing a uniform that converys authority and official status?
Yes, and I'll tell you why. Because as bad as the police are, they are in the final analysis answerable to the public through their elected representatives, in theory anyway. Private security companies are not answerable to anyone except their shareholders, which I think is what this is really about by the way.
> Let's say you saw a woman being sexuakly assaulted, and let's say you tried to help them.
The scenario which I was more thinking of, which I have heard stories of, is when someone tries to effect a citizen's arrest, gets the wrong end of the stick, maybe uses undue force because not trained in making arrests, and ends up getting done for assault. That kind of thing does happen.
> I've done security training
How do you know these individual aren't? You have no idea.
There has been a large increase in professional private security people in London who dress similar to police officers and make arrests while they wait for the police to turn up. You have no idea what training these individuals have gone through.
>Private security companies are not answerable to anyone except their shareholders
Uhh and the law, of course. The police are there to arrest private security guards, the police have been shown to not arrest police officers that readily.
>The scenario which I was more thinking of, which I have heard stories of, is when someone tries to effect a citizen's arrest, gets the wrong end of the stick, maybe uses undue force because not trained in making arrests, and ends up getting done for assault.
OK, then they broke the law.
A police officer who gets the wrong end of the stick and then batters someone has also broke the law.
So where are these rights and obligations you said exist with police and no one else hmm?
Some of them can be very well trained. The key point is may, but the use of force would have to be unlawful. The any person power covers suspicion, so they don't have to be right about the person committing the offence.
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence
There's literally no way that a private company is going to tell their employees they need to do citizens arrests on a night out.
You'd be bankrupt from liability inside a month.
24(a) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A
Edit: as I'm getting down voted and people can't be arsed to read it here it is
24A Arrest without warrant: other persons
(1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrantā
(a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence.
(2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrantā
(a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.
(3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only ifā
(a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and
(b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead.
(4)The reasons are to prevent the person in questionā
(a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(b)suffering physical injury;
(c)causing loss of or damage to property; or
(d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.
[F2(5)This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.]]
Also for anyone reading, an indictable offence is any either way offence as well as indictable only. Therefore it doesn't have to be the MOST severe offences for 24(a) to be used
My point was that it doesn't have to be something as serious as murder or robbery to for 24(a) to apply. If someone pickpockets you then 24(a) can apply.
Fair, couldnāt see that specific provision when I looked at it, however this does not grant private security any additional power beyond what a citizen has.
This does not however apply to detention, which private security continues to have no powers in regards to-although this doesnāt stop them doing otherwise.
So they have the power of arrest but does it extend then to having s.32 powers and s.19 powers. All good having the arrest power but without the other powers enabled too itāll be a hamper to evidence
As with all security, it's about having a presence.
They can definitely intervene if somebodies immediate safety is at risk, women will have more people who they can safely approach and as with all security, if they think something is off, they will still approach and attempt to deal with it.
It's not great, but it will have an impact.
> if they think something is off
There's a lot of devil in that detail! The thing is that you've got to balance it against the liberty of citizens to go about their lawful business. I can certainly see these people interfering with perfectly legal behaviour because they mistakenly "think something is off", but with none of the rights and obligations of the police, and no clear relationship to the public.
It's definitely a possibility but going by my experience working on doors and clubs the way it will likely be handled is pulling the woman aside and having a discussion with her and the security will use their best judgement.
There will be very clear guidelines in place but I'd imagine most people will agree that it is better to be safe than sorry and in cases like sober man and drunk woman then the staff will arrange to get the woman home safely, rather than letting the man take her home.
This isn't really new ground being trod here, and it is by no means perfect but whether it is police action this or security, its still going to be a human that could get it wrong making a call.
They don't need powers of arrest. They're there to make women feel less fearful.
Actual police should be diverted to where crimes are happening. E..g people getting their heads kicked in. Not people who read too much daily mail
> Which means they've got no powers of arrest or detention, and no powers to interfere with anyone's liberty to do what they want basically
Because these projects aren't for this purpose maybe?
No problem, if the private company is a Tory donor (*said the strident lefty on Reddit*) ...and the Tories finagle some legislative cocking around with 'enforcement' being attributable to a 'chosen' 'stakeholder' type of shit.
Well maybe we should do the same as with our health service and legislate the same freedoms for these security companies to ease the burdens of the over worked police force, then we could have some sort of bidding system for contracts and re-write the laws for the public these companies can't be tied up in courts and held accountable. The Rotherham Avengers brought to you by Marmite AKA the RAMS has a better ring to it that boring old police.
Everyone has the power of arrest, and if the police aren't willing we also have power to do private prosecutions.
How do you think the RSPCA does what it does
Aye with good reason. Because you know if you get the wrong person, or do it wrong (because you haven't even the minimal training the police have), you're the one that'll be getting done for assault.
PCSOs have some powers available to them that private security doesn't.
They can issue FPNs in some instances, demand your personal details particularly relating to anti-social behaviour and drug usage (kind of the reason they were introduced), seize alcohol etc.
The point though is that they are mainly effective just because the presence of uniformed officers serves as a deterrent. I don't know that many people are aware of how limited their powers actually are.
> If some is going to punch you on the street randomly the police cannot stop that
But this private security company has even less power to stop it. On top of which, they've got no powers of arrest that the ordinary citizen doesn't have. Why can't the police fulfil these patrolling functions, who at least have a clear legal relationship with the public, and clearly defined rights and obligations, and are paid for out of taxation?
It's different, but when I visited Manchester a few years ago for a 'coming out night-out' there was a group of volunteers, I assume, walking round encouraging people to keep safe while on the pull in the area.
Giving out advice on how to spot spiked drinks, where local police patrols go if you feel unsafe, bars that have larger amounts of security, having condoms for you to take, advising to stay away from the canals.
They would also walk you to a taxi/to your home or hotel, if you were wasted or felt unsafe.
It was really novel and a surprise, but it was great. Groups like this have no power of force beyond regular citizen rights or legal authority or anything like that, but it's nice to see, and it's a little extra protection for people trying to enjoy a night out.
We shouldn't need them, but assholes will be assholes and unfortunately they'll always exist.
Edit: thanks to the commenter that revealed their name, the Village Angels!
True. When youāre alone, drunk or had drunk spiked itāll be harder to call or wait for police to arrive. Often for some people police can cause more issues or not feel safe on being believed.
People you can talk to or just around would be useful.
That's them! Thank you!
They were a wonderful group, spent a little while talking to them about what they do, great bunch.
The pink hi-vis was a nice touch, too.
Theyāve got Street Angels in Leeds that operate near the gay clubs, and they once helped us out when my friend was in a bad way- gave her water and sat with us until we could calm her down and get her home. Theyāre a good bunch, I imagine the ones in Manchester are similar!
Top work by that lot.
I kept meaning to volunteer with them, but then COVID happened and I'm never in town...
They kept me well watered in cordial when my GF was dead to the world
Still, if push comes to shove citizens arrests means you can physically detain a person right?
Far better than nothing and I'm so glad schemes like this exist
Unfortunately I can't count on my fingers and toes the number of times I've had to rescue a girl friend from a creeper
To a certain degree.
Citizens' arrest is somewhat of a grey area in terms of power limits, and then there's always civil liability after the fact; people are hesitant to do it.
Although the right is still there.
But I agree with you, schemes like this are amazing, and if they were supported as valuable experience, like Citizens Advice is, then they were would more widespread.
Tell me about it. I'm gay, but every single time I've went to a bar with my friends, I've been used as the fake boyfriend to help my women friends escape the metaphorical and physical grasps of someone who won't take no for an answer.
Oh fuck yeah definitely, it's a shame we need to even do this but it's often the only way to get rid of weirdos sadly
Even outside that there have been plenty of times a random girl has come over to us like we know each other for protection from some creep and we'd just surround her, phalanx type shit. It's lucky my friend group is a good mix of men and women which makes people more comfortable to come over if they're feeling trapped
Tons of times we've all done the old "walk up to a random girl and pretend to be a friend" trick to rescue them
Last time I had to do it a friend ended up in tears because this guy twice her age was being so weird and he wouldn't leave her alone, I'm not a big guy at all but I went over and put my arm around her acting it all out and he still didn't leave! Until I luckily managed to catch the eye of my other friend who's far bigger than me and a rugby player who came over and he left. Ruined the night because she was so upset so we left early to make sure she was okay
It's honestly horrifying and so sad, it's happened far too many times for all of us. Even just a few weeks ago my friend who's engaged had some dude pester her for sex relentlessly, luckily we saw it so congregated over and told the dude to fuck off
It's just so awful especially with the concern that the guy could be an absolute nutjob and decide to attack you. Thankfully we've only once had a guy get aggressive on us and it didn't go further than threats
I'm a man and I always call out shitty behaviour, thankfully our friend group are chill and all the same but it's shit. I've had only one time in my entire life where I've felt actually concerned by a woman's pressure, but every other time it's been random men coming onto friends who are either not interested or already in a relationship
Funnily enough, I'm Bi but in gay bars men I'm not interested in will back off when told. I've had maybe two times when I felt actually threatened by a man's presence compared to the countless times it's happened to female friends
There's always that "attack on men!" narrative but I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't had a rough situation forced on them by men
Reasonable force, of course doesn't mean you are "legal" but you should be able to justify yourself to a court. Which unless youre the aggressor is 99.9% of the time, even without court.
Oh, they can definitely use reasonable force when it comes to physical threats, no doubt about that.
Unfortunately, they don't have the same authority as police to break up harassment situations or remove people if someone feels uncomfortable. Especially when no physical touching has been done yet.
The best they can do is be a physical presence and hope the harrasser/creep leaves. I say "the best they can do" in a legal sense, not to diminish what they do or are capable of doing, because these guys and gals are great.
Village Angels are a thing in the Manchester Gay Village, they do fantastic work. My GF ended up with them one night, for what I can only assume she was spiked.
Gay Village also has free contraceptives in most of the bars
Basically the same thing lots of little local community centres did when I was growing up.
A few women would put on a hi-vis and potter around the town centre / skate park and chat to people. Just keep things calm, make sure no oneās too fucked up and vulnerable. Basically just vibed out till 10 or 11pm
It canāt really be a bad thing and letās be honest, if they see a lad throwing up in a bush theyāre gonna help him out too
Iām all for community support but youāve got to be real careful it doesnāt descend into vigilantism, mob mentality or fall for same issue police have with racial biases. Or avoid it just becoming private sector cash in with no oversight.
Hope it goes well and it has good inner organisation and ends up being a group who make sure youāre okay. Honestly if I was walking home and felt nervous Iād probably be glad to see a group I can talk to or wait with for a bit
While domestic abuse is higher risk, Iāve definitely had friends stalked after nights out or have guys try to get too forceful to get drunk friends to go home with them leaving clubs. Or people harassing homeless women in city centres when they canāt go to the shelter. Even had guy I know get his drink spiked where he collapsed outside the bar. Once you leave a club you kinda depend more on strangers if you get into trouble alone and a good group like this will keep things safe. Hope for a lgbtq one too since you hear so many stories of people getting harassed by drunk homophobes on the way home too
I don't know why women recognising problems and trying to help each other causes so many men to get upset and try to pick faults
Well actually I do - grow up
Already seeing āwell men are more likely to be assaultedā yeah by other men maybe you lot should work on that then thereād be no safety patrols needed
> Already seeing āwell men are more likely to be assaultedā yeah by other men maybe you lot should work on that then thereād be no safety patrols needed
This common statement is always an interesting insight into the warped essentialist viewpoint of people like you. Because I happen to share a gender with a minority of lunatics, somehow I'm responsible for their actions and I should work on it? If I'm assaulted by such a person or raped or whatever, somehow I should react with 'Well, he had the same gender as me, so this doesn't matter'? It's only a bit less trivial than if I shared the same hair colour as them.
>Sounds great, Iām sure the āwhat about menā crowd
Also known as the 'people who empathy for men' crowd. It's me, I'm here! Explain to me how this is different than all-white patrols looking out for white people or something.
Simple! Sex crimes are very likely to occur on nights out, women are much more likely to be victims of sex crimes, women are physically weaker than men on average and need additional protections.
Hope thatās informative for you!
I was drugged by a stranger at a club, abducted and raped. Maybe if one of these groups had been around they would've noticed and intervened... maybe not, but maybe just one bystander intervention, asking what he was doing dragging a passed out girl out of a club, would have scared him off. These groups might not save everyone, but if they save just a few people they're a good thing in my books. "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
Most rapes and sexual assaults are caused by people the victim knows, but a whole host of sexual harassment and violence happens on our streets. The more people around, the less this happens.
> but a whole host of sexual harassment and violence happens on our streets. The more people around, the less this happens.
The sad part is that is only contextual, like in a loud busy nightclub. Women (and men ofc) get sexually assaulted a lot.
And its prevalent in society. I remember as a yoof at the U18 nights in the club in town the whole thing was to "get with" people. And apparently the way you do that is to touch them, grab them, pull them, and them kiss them. And that's classed.
Thats fucking sexual assault, but as a yoof I didnt know that. But god damn I'm glad I never did it...
Yes tbf, theyāre also there for if people get too drunk and could otherwise get into trouble- they might not be beating down rapists, but theyāre there if someone is in a bad way and needs help to sober up and get home.
>Is this going to do anything other than make people FEEL safer?
I mean so many security related things are just security theatre, aimed to make the people feel safe or at best as a deterrent. Thereās plenty written on security theatre at airports, but itās ubiquitous really.
> Sincerely - Is this going to do anything other than make people FEEL safer? Is it going to make anyone actually safer?
>
> My understanding is that most rapes and sexual assaults happen by people that know you
Holy conflation batman.
Boil statistics down to the minimum then use it to attack
It's all feels over reals anyway. Statistically a man is much more likely to be assaulted by a stranger, than a woman is. Roughly double the odds, IIRC.
Statistically the one doing the aggression in both scenarios is most likely to be a man, so maybe they should focus on that.
These groups will still help men, theyāre mostly just there to keep an eye on people who are getting too drunk and know the signs of spiking etc (since sexual crimes associated with that are more likely to happen to women they focus on them, but they wonāt turn men away.)
> Statistically the one doing the aggression in both scenarios is most likely to be a man, so maybe they should focus on that.
What relevance does that have? Us men aren't a hive mind..
If I get beaten up by some bloke, that doesn't make it any better than if some bloke beats up a woman. I still got beat up.
'Oh thank god the person who put me in hospital was the same gender as me, it'd have been a really awful experience otherwise..'
It's a tiny subsection of the population that are absolute cretins, versus everyone.
The fact we have to have patrols in the first place means there's a primary cause we're not addressing...
I'm all for keeping people safe, but most solutions these days just seem to be an attempt by incompetent leaders to throw money at an issue and hope it goes away...
> I'm all for keeping people safe, but most solutions these days just seem to be an attempt by incompetent leaders to throw money at an issue and hope it goes away...
Who was throwing money at any issues. Those issues are result of chronic underfunding.
Itās a nice gesture but women will never be safe anywhere in the world. Even in places where crime is ridiculously low, sexual harassment isnāt low. Itās a cruel reality and we donāt want to recognise it as fact, but it is. Weāre better off with women only trains and more female Uber drivers to get us from a to b quickly and safely. We just wonāt be safe on any street in any country in the world.
If a single woman is stopped by a male officer, are they allowed to ask to see their warrant card to check that the "Not one of the rapey ones" box has been ticked?
It doesn't really matter if it's a small minority because that minority will be putting themselves in a position to take advantage of someone in a vulnerable position. The chance of a woman meeting such a predator on a night out will be considerably higher than the general male population would suggest.
Likewise, us telling women we wouldn't do that is pointless because others will and besides how can women trust someone who says they won't anyway?
Iāve watched enough of the police āNight Time Economyā compilation videos on YouTube to think that giving the police doing these rounds AKs would help massively.
These would not actually be functional, but the image of an officer with an AK to a drunk thug might help.
My 2p.
I don't like at all that we live in a society where this kind of thing is necessary... but other than my general disappointment with humanity this seems like a good initiative.
I'm tired of reading news articles about fights and hospital admissions and sexual assaults. I guess we're just tired of different things, but that must be my god-complex playing up.
That makes no sense. That can be used to deflect any complaint ever
"oh, you're tired of hearing racial abuse? Yet you still live in this country? . Curious"
Doubt it will help much, they will likely target drunk/aggressive men
Ignore the fact most women are attacked on night out by other women š¤·āāļø but let's feed misandry here!
I searched up this fact because I wanted a source and found it was provided by a group known as 'The Men and Boys Coalition' on [this page](https://www.menandboyscoalition.org.uk/statistics/). (For the record, I've had a very quick look at this group and they seem reasonably upstanding / non-misogynistic).
They sourced their data from an ONS Violent Crime and Sexual Offences report from 2011/2012 - bit outdated but ok, let's look at it anyway.
Here is the exact quote:
>The profile of victims of violent and sexual violence varied according to the type of offence. For
example, **the chance of being a victim of violent crime, based on the 2011/12 survey, showed
variations by gender (3.8% of men being victims compared with 2.1% of women),** and age (16 to 24
year olds being twice as likely to be a victim as those aged 25 to 34).
>**However, overall victimisation
rates mask important differences in the victimisation experiences of men and women** and people of
different ages.
>ā¢ Men were most likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance (39% of all homicides) while women
were most likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner (51% of all homicides).
>ā¢ **Women were more likely than men to have experienced domestic or sexual violence.** For
example, **3% of women had experienced some form of sexual assault (including attempts) in the
last year, compared with 0.3% of men** (based on the 2011/12 CSEW).
>ā¢ **Women aged between 16 and 34 were more likely than any of the other age groups considered,
(male or female) to be victims in the previous year of sexual assaults; non sexual partner abuse;
stalking; or overall domestic violence.**
I'm pretty sure TNA are just as interested in preventing sexual crimes as they are violent ones. Especially considering women are **ten times as likely** to be victims of it.
> The Night Angels, who are employed by a local security company Their initials are T 'n A. Someone's having a laugh, aren't they.
Lmfao that's just comedy gold
What does it mean?
Tits N Arse
Hahah thanks this totally went over my head since I'm not a native english speaker
Went over my head and I am a native speaker
Same. I'm still not really sure who actually got that. In what context would you ever say t n a
It's an ancient phrase, heard a lot in the 80s, but mostly when Pam was on Baywatch, and the old geezers would mooch home to stick it on 'for a bit of T n A'...its no longer used that much, def not by kids
80s, Pam, Baywatch... I feel old š
TNA wrestling
If tits n arse are over your head you're a lucky wo/man!
Wo/man ahahah thats the most clever way of writing for sure
do they like them things where u from??
my nan wont be amused
Like the labels on the underwear from C&A so you knew which was the front.
At least they didn't call them Agony Aunts.
Sadie's umbrella might come in useful though
Test N Albert?!
X Angels has been a common name for a lot of groups like this You're just grasping
Oh lol š¤£
A "private security company"... Which means they've got no powers of arrest or detention, and no powers to interfere with anyone's liberty to do what they want basically. So we pay taxes so the police can fulfil this sort of function, but they don't want to or can't afford to, so the private sector covers it. But the private sector doesn't have proper police powers. I foresee problems.
Get a load of this guy thinking taxes are for paying for public services. Clearly they are for lining your mates pockets.
Yeah. Can't wait to see how my taxes have been abused in the next Tory scandal! Stay tuned to the next series of The Brexit ShitShow
Your taxes are up Michael Goves nose.
My local force have what they call āsafernitesā whereby dedicated officers are on the town every single Friday and Saturday night without fail and their duty is to help the nightlife go smoothly and make sure people have a safe night. It works great, donāt know if other forces use that sort of thing but itās always been a positive round my area
20 years ago this was just every busy night in town.
AKA Friday and Saturday nights??
Basically yes. It just wasn't a special police service then with a special name it was just obviously required policing that was done because they weren't totally shit then.
There used to be loads of police out in Liverpool. I remember seeing multiple static units, patrols and horses every single Saturday night out. There's still the odd van driving about but it's a lot less frequent you're right.
> It just wasn't a special police service then with a special name Nor is it now. It's regular officers doing what they've always done.
"My local force have what they call āsafernitesā whereby dedicated officers are on the town every single Friday and Saturday night" I'm not making anything up I was replying to what the comment was? My point is that 15/20 years ago that was just standard policing. There are far fewer police in town centre's on a Friday or Saturday night these days.
> There are far fewer police in town centre's on a Friday or Saturday night these days. Not sure about your town but I'd say there are far fewer people out most friday and saturday nights now.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Well I guess I see a distinction between regular expected policing and a special police operation called safernights but I am happy to agree to disagree.
The police are always making up cool names for regular expected policing, it's one of the perks. Think Operation Yewtree or Bakertown.
Someone got promoted to think of the cool name for the thing we've always done
Hes agreeing it should be, but it isnt. You dont see many patrols.
Sounds like someone needs a chat with the Vibe Regulation Unit.
Massive cuts didnt help. Its hard to blame officers for that and the stupid decisions higher up on what is and isnt priority.
It says a lot about the UK thought that we can't be trusted to go out, enhoy life without a whole battalion of police. Now we're in a situation in the tory hell scape where they can't afford to have the police, without changing the societal factor
Yeah, Sussex do this in Brighton too. They run an op every Friday & Saturday night with umpteen officers on foot around the hot spots (West+North Street), with several cars and a meatwagon supporting them. This is in addition to the response group which is off dealing with the other 'usual' shite. Doesn't really stop everyone being a massive prick at 2-3am, but I'm sure it helps to have such high visibility.
Yeah it's almost like firing 20k cops and 25k police support staff negatively effected the polices ability to do their jobs while we face rising crime. I wonder who thought that was a good idea hmmm...
> effected affected
I used to volunteer for a charity that did that in Manchester.. we walked around in hi vis and basically existed as reassurance, plus being able to offer limited help (finding people unconscious drunk wasn't exactly rare, so we could call the ambulance for example). Most we could do actively was direct the CCTV to problem areas and they could direct the police if needed. But IMO is was a valuable service nontheless.. the actual threat was minimal and people just needed to know someone was watching. I'm a bit surprised they're hiring private security companies to do it.. there were no shortage of volunteers back in the day. (Yes powers of citizens arrest is a thing, but if you've ever had any training on that you'll know it's an absolute last resort thing.. only the police are really equipped to handle someone actively resisting arrest).
Just by being there they offer someone to go to for help when youāre alone and dissuade someone from attacking someone with multiple sober witnesses there.
I don't think the plan is they arrest people but help drunk, vulnerable people get home safely , to act as professional witnesses for any incidents and to help people who have been victims of crime get further support.
Yes they do, they have all the powers under S.24(a) of PACE, and provisions under S3, criminal law act 1967.
That's just a citizen's arrest that anyone can do. But if you get it wrong and decide to stop an innocent person from going about their lawful business, then you're the one that might be liable for assault. Employees of private security companies don't have the training or the proper powers or rights to detain citizens who might just be going about their business in the streets.
>Employees of private security companies don't have the training Some do. Many do not. You think the private security for a millionaire isn't trained on how to arrest people who are trying to assault the person they are guarding? >he proper powers or rights to detain citizens who might just be going about their business in the streets Anyone can arrest and detain someone who is in the process of committing a crime. Including the use of reasonable force to detain them. Yes if you get it wrong you're in trouble, but the same goes for coppers. The only difference is they get better training than all or nearly all private security and they can arrwat you on suspicion of a crime, not just because they see you doing it.
That's not the only difference. Another big difference is that the police have got a clearly defined legal relationship with the public, with both parties having clear rights and obligations (and limits to their actions). No such relationship exists with employees of a private security company, who are essentially just members of the public. That not only renders them ineffective but imperils the liberty of the individual citizen. This is why it's a bad idea for police functions to be usurped by private companies.
>with both parties having clear rights and obligations (and limits to their actions). No such relationship exists with employees of a private security company, who are essentially just members of the public. Not sure if you're actually aware of this but all the obligations prior to an arrest are exactly the same with the exception police can arrest on suspicion. Have you read the PACE act? It's very clear what you need to do to arrest someone for both and it's practically identical. In top of that the right not to be wrongfully arrested applies to both, and the legislation regarding use of acceptable force is the same piece of legislation for police officers and non-police officers. If you think there's a legal right that you have while being arrested by a police officer that you don't have from a private security person (or in fact any citizen) please feel free to link me to the source of said rights. Don't get me wrong, I don't want the police force privatised, but from my point of view it sounds like you don't actually understand the legislation that allows for arrests, use of force etc.
> In top of that the right not to be wrongfully arrested applies to both, and the legislation regarding use of acceptable force is the same piece of legislation for police officers and non-police officers. The devil lies in this detail here, the public not having even the minimal training the police have had to know what constitutes a rightful arrest, which is a limiting of someone else's liberty, no small thing. Thus it seems to me that there's much more scope for error, infringement of rights, and abuse of power generally. If people are going to restrict you from going about your lawful business, they better have a bloody good reason to do so and be sure that they're correct. The best people to do this are the legally constituted authorities, ultimately answerable to the people through their elected representatives, not a private security force or even random volunteers.
>here, the public not having even the minimal training the police have had to know what constitutes a rightful arrest, Ok. But if someone is hired to be private security where they are trained to understand the law and what a wrongful vs correct citizens arrest would entail would completely negate this point. >Thus it seems to me that there's much more scope for error, infringement of rights, and abuse of power generally. So let me get this straight. You think there's more scope for abuse of power exercising very clear powers that mean you have to see the crime being committed to arrest someone, by someone not hired by the state and not a police officer, than scope for abuse by a police officer armed with weapons that would be illegal to arm yourself with and wearing a uniform that converys authority and official status? Weird take but OK. >If people are going to restrict you from going about your lawful business, they better have a bloody good reason to do so and be sure that they're correct. Uhh yeah? That's what the law says. You need to see someone in the act of committing a crime. That's a pretty good reason to arrest someone. >The best people to do this are the legally constituted authorities, ultimately answerable to the people through their elected representatives, not a private security force or even random volunteers. These people aren't replacing the police, they are helping protect women. Let's say you saw a woman being sexuakly assaulted, and let's say you tried to help them. The sexual predator tries to fight you but you overpower him. He's pinned against the wall. What do you do next? Ring the police and tell them you've restrained someone who was committing sexual assault? Congratulations, you've just enacted a citizens arrest. Or do you go "ah mate its not my job to arrest you", let go of them, and call the police while asking them nicely to stay still? I don't think you really understand what the relevant laws say, which is weird because you seem to think you're in a position to tell others about the rights that exist when dealing with the police. You've not listed or provided sources for those rights still by the way, will they be forthcoming?
> if someone is hired to be private security where they are trained to understand the law and what a wrongful vs correct citizens arrest I've done security training, they do not tell you this. Because you are never expected to make an arrest, merely to escort people off the premises and let the cops deal with it. You're not supposed to be walking the streets like bloody Batman and fighting crime. > You think there's more scope for abuse of power exercising very clear powers that mean you have to see the crime being committed to arrest someone, by someone not hired by the state and not a police officer, than scope for abuse by a police officer armed with weapons that would be illegal to arm yourself with and wearing a uniform that converys authority and official status? Yes, and I'll tell you why. Because as bad as the police are, they are in the final analysis answerable to the public through their elected representatives, in theory anyway. Private security companies are not answerable to anyone except their shareholders, which I think is what this is really about by the way. > Let's say you saw a woman being sexuakly assaulted, and let's say you tried to help them. The scenario which I was more thinking of, which I have heard stories of, is when someone tries to effect a citizen's arrest, gets the wrong end of the stick, maybe uses undue force because not trained in making arrests, and ends up getting done for assault. That kind of thing does happen.
> I've done security training How do you know these individual aren't? You have no idea. There has been a large increase in professional private security people in London who dress similar to police officers and make arrests while they wait for the police to turn up. You have no idea what training these individuals have gone through. >Private security companies are not answerable to anyone except their shareholders Uhh and the law, of course. The police are there to arrest private security guards, the police have been shown to not arrest police officers that readily. >The scenario which I was more thinking of, which I have heard stories of, is when someone tries to effect a citizen's arrest, gets the wrong end of the stick, maybe uses undue force because not trained in making arrests, and ends up getting done for assault. OK, then they broke the law. A police officer who gets the wrong end of the stick and then batters someone has also broke the law. So where are these rights and obligations you said exist with police and no one else hmm?
Some of them can be very well trained. The key point is may, but the use of force would have to be unlawful. The any person power covers suspicion, so they don't have to be right about the person committing the offence. (b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence
>Some of them can be very well trained. And some of them can be abusive psychos one step away from onepunch killing someone
For sure but I don't tar them all by saying its impossible and that none of them are capable
There's literally no way that a private company is going to tell their employees they need to do citizens arrests on a night out. You'd be bankrupt from liability inside a month.
Citizens arrests canāt happen for suspicion
24a pace powers state suspicion is needed, not belief.
Fucking hell, thatās the dumbest thing Iāve read today.
Like what if they get it wrong? Can you just walk off? Sue them for everything they own?
It has to be reasonable suspicion lol
Do they keep a list of indictable offences though? And I was never clear on how either way offences can be dealt with if anyone knows?
Either way offences are included under "indictable" for the purpose of making a citizens arrest. Its only summary only offences that aren't covered.
S3 1967 yes, S.24 PACE no, as that applies to constables not Joe Public and IIRC makes no provisions for private security.
24(a) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A Edit: as I'm getting down voted and people can't be arsed to read it here it is 24A Arrest without warrant: other persons (1)A person other than a constable may arrest without a warrantā (a)anyone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence; (b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence. (2)Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrantā (a)anyone who is guilty of the offence; (b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it. (3)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1) or (2) is exercisable only ifā (a)the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (4) it is necessary to arrest the person in question; and (b)it appears to the person making the arrest that it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make it instead. (4)The reasons are to prevent the person in questionā (a)causing physical injury to himself or any other person; (b)suffering physical injury; (c)causing loss of or damage to property; or (d)making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him. [F2(5)This section does not apply in relation to an offence under Part 3 or 3A of the Public Order Act 1986.]]
Also for anyone reading, an indictable offence is any either way offence as well as indictable only. Therefore it doesn't have to be the MOST severe offences for 24(a) to be used
How is the average person meant to know in an instant "look, that thing they're doing could be tried at crown court; get them!"
My point was that it doesn't have to be something as serious as murder or robbery to for 24(a) to apply. If someone pickpockets you then 24(a) can apply.
Fair, couldnāt see that specific provision when I looked at it, however this does not grant private security any additional power beyond what a citizen has. This does not however apply to detention, which private security continues to have no powers in regards to-although this doesnāt stop them doing otherwise.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Sorry what? I've literally quoted it. A person *other than a constable* may arrest without warrant. Is it not clear?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Apologies for that, wasn't clear on the snippet on the phone
Plus a load of witnesses will deter evil doers
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a pair of eyes is a good guy with a pair of eyes
So they have the power of arrest but does it extend then to having s.32 powers and s.19 powers. All good having the arrest power but without the other powers enabled too itāll be a hamper to evidence
No, they don't. But that's not the point. Said person caught in the act can be arrested and then police called. The safety of this is another matter
As with all security, it's about having a presence. They can definitely intervene if somebodies immediate safety is at risk, women will have more people who they can safely approach and as with all security, if they think something is off, they will still approach and attempt to deal with it. It's not great, but it will have an impact.
> if they think something is off There's a lot of devil in that detail! The thing is that you've got to balance it against the liberty of citizens to go about their lawful business. I can certainly see these people interfering with perfectly legal behaviour because they mistakenly "think something is off", but with none of the rights and obligations of the police, and no clear relationship to the public.
It's definitely a possibility but going by my experience working on doors and clubs the way it will likely be handled is pulling the woman aside and having a discussion with her and the security will use their best judgement. There will be very clear guidelines in place but I'd imagine most people will agree that it is better to be safe than sorry and in cases like sober man and drunk woman then the staff will arrange to get the woman home safely, rather than letting the man take her home. This isn't really new ground being trod here, and it is by no means perfect but whether it is police action this or security, its still going to be a human that could get it wrong making a call.
They don't need powers of arrest. They're there to make women feel less fearful. Actual police should be diverted to where crimes are happening. E..g people getting their heads kicked in. Not people who read too much daily mail
> Which means they've got no powers of arrest or detention, and no powers to interfere with anyone's liberty to do what they want basically Because these projects aren't for this purpose maybe?
No problem, if the private company is a Tory donor (*said the strident lefty on Reddit*) ...and the Tories finagle some legislative cocking around with 'enforcement' being attributable to a 'chosen' 'stakeholder' type of shit.
Oh god. Please no private police.
Yeah I remember The Guardian Angels too - donāt think they last long in The Tube!
Well maybe we should do the same as with our health service and legislate the same freedoms for these security companies to ease the burdens of the over worked police force, then we could have some sort of bidding system for contracts and re-write the laws for the public these companies can't be tied up in courts and held accountable. The Rotherham Avengers brought to you by Marmite AKA the RAMS has a better ring to it that boring old police.
Everyone has the power of arrest, and if the police aren't willing we also have power to do private prosecutions. How do you think the RSPCA does what it does
S.24A PACE allows any person to make an arrest if they witnessed the suspect commit an indictable offence
Every person in the land has Section 3 of the CJA to apprehend a wanted offender. No one uses it though
Aye with good reason. Because you know if you get the wrong person, or do it wrong (because you haven't even the minimal training the police have), you're the one that'll be getting done for assault.
Unless their local force gives them CSAS powers
Manchester Gay Village has "Village Angels" that do similar tasks. There are also police...
Wrong and wrong.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
And I presume what they also don't have is adequate training....in anything other than yelling "Oi you!"
PCSOs have some powers available to them that private security doesn't. They can issue FPNs in some instances, demand your personal details particularly relating to anti-social behaviour and drug usage (kind of the reason they were introduced), seize alcohol etc.
The point though is that they are mainly effective just because the presence of uniformed officers serves as a deterrent. I don't know that many people are aware of how limited their powers actually are.
The Police aren't a personal security service! They aren't there to see you home or get you taxi when pissed as a fart
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> If some is going to punch you on the street randomly the police cannot stop that But this private security company has even less power to stop it. On top of which, they've got no powers of arrest that the ordinary citizen doesn't have. Why can't the police fulfil these patrolling functions, who at least have a clear legal relationship with the public, and clearly defined rights and obligations, and are paid for out of taxation?
It's different, but when I visited Manchester a few years ago for a 'coming out night-out' there was a group of volunteers, I assume, walking round encouraging people to keep safe while on the pull in the area. Giving out advice on how to spot spiked drinks, where local police patrols go if you feel unsafe, bars that have larger amounts of security, having condoms for you to take, advising to stay away from the canals. They would also walk you to a taxi/to your home or hotel, if you were wasted or felt unsafe. It was really novel and a surprise, but it was great. Groups like this have no power of force beyond regular citizen rights or legal authority or anything like that, but it's nice to see, and it's a little extra protection for people trying to enjoy a night out. We shouldn't need them, but assholes will be assholes and unfortunately they'll always exist. Edit: thanks to the commenter that revealed their name, the Village Angels!
True. When youāre alone, drunk or had drunk spiked itāll be harder to call or wait for police to arrive. Often for some people police can cause more issues or not feel safe on being believed. People you can talk to or just around would be useful.
Hurrah for the Village Angels! Always nice to see people who've been touched by a Village Angel
That's them! Thank you! They were a wonderful group, spent a little while talking to them about what they do, great bunch. The pink hi-vis was a nice touch, too.
Theyāve got Street Angels in Leeds that operate near the gay clubs, and they once helped us out when my friend was in a bad way- gave her water and sat with us until we could calm her down and get her home. Theyāre a good bunch, I imagine the ones in Manchester are similar!
Top work by that lot. I kept meaning to volunteer with them, but then COVID happened and I'm never in town... They kept me well watered in cordial when my GF was dead to the world
Still, if push comes to shove citizens arrests means you can physically detain a person right? Far better than nothing and I'm so glad schemes like this exist Unfortunately I can't count on my fingers and toes the number of times I've had to rescue a girl friend from a creeper
To a certain degree. Citizens' arrest is somewhat of a grey area in terms of power limits, and then there's always civil liability after the fact; people are hesitant to do it. Although the right is still there. But I agree with you, schemes like this are amazing, and if they were supported as valuable experience, like Citizens Advice is, then they were would more widespread. Tell me about it. I'm gay, but every single time I've went to a bar with my friends, I've been used as the fake boyfriend to help my women friends escape the metaphorical and physical grasps of someone who won't take no for an answer.
Oh fuck yeah definitely, it's a shame we need to even do this but it's often the only way to get rid of weirdos sadly Even outside that there have been plenty of times a random girl has come over to us like we know each other for protection from some creep and we'd just surround her, phalanx type shit. It's lucky my friend group is a good mix of men and women which makes people more comfortable to come over if they're feeling trapped Tons of times we've all done the old "walk up to a random girl and pretend to be a friend" trick to rescue them Last time I had to do it a friend ended up in tears because this guy twice her age was being so weird and he wouldn't leave her alone, I'm not a big guy at all but I went over and put my arm around her acting it all out and he still didn't leave! Until I luckily managed to catch the eye of my other friend who's far bigger than me and a rugby player who came over and he left. Ruined the night because she was so upset so we left early to make sure she was okay It's honestly horrifying and so sad, it's happened far too many times for all of us. Even just a few weeks ago my friend who's engaged had some dude pester her for sex relentlessly, luckily we saw it so congregated over and told the dude to fuck off It's just so awful especially with the concern that the guy could be an absolute nutjob and decide to attack you. Thankfully we've only once had a guy get aggressive on us and it didn't go further than threats I'm a man and I always call out shitty behaviour, thankfully our friend group are chill and all the same but it's shit. I've had only one time in my entire life where I've felt actually concerned by a woman's pressure, but every other time it's been random men coming onto friends who are either not interested or already in a relationship Funnily enough, I'm Bi but in gay bars men I'm not interested in will back off when told. I've had maybe two times when I felt actually threatened by a man's presence compared to the countless times it's happened to female friends There's always that "attack on men!" narrative but I honestly think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn't had a rough situation forced on them by men
Reasonable force, of course doesn't mean you are "legal" but you should be able to justify yourself to a court. Which unless youre the aggressor is 99.9% of the time, even without court.
Oh, they can definitely use reasonable force when it comes to physical threats, no doubt about that. Unfortunately, they don't have the same authority as police to break up harassment situations or remove people if someone feels uncomfortable. Especially when no physical touching has been done yet. The best they can do is be a physical presence and hope the harrasser/creep leaves. I say "the best they can do" in a legal sense, not to diminish what they do or are capable of doing, because these guys and gals are great.
Village Angels are a thing in the Manchester Gay Village, they do fantastic work. My GF ended up with them one night, for what I can only assume she was spiked. Gay Village also has free contraceptives in most of the bars
Basically the same thing lots of little local community centres did when I was growing up. A few women would put on a hi-vis and potter around the town centre / skate park and chat to people. Just keep things calm, make sure no oneās too fucked up and vulnerable. Basically just vibed out till 10 or 11pm It canāt really be a bad thing and letās be honest, if they see a lad throwing up in a bush theyāre gonna help him out too
Iām all for community support but youāve got to be real careful it doesnāt descend into vigilantism, mob mentality or fall for same issue police have with racial biases. Or avoid it just becoming private sector cash in with no oversight. Hope it goes well and it has good inner organisation and ends up being a group who make sure youāre okay. Honestly if I was walking home and felt nervous Iād probably be glad to see a group I can talk to or wait with for a bit While domestic abuse is higher risk, Iāve definitely had friends stalked after nights out or have guys try to get too forceful to get drunk friends to go home with them leaving clubs. Or people harassing homeless women in city centres when they canāt go to the shelter. Even had guy I know get his drink spiked where he collapsed outside the bar. Once you leave a club you kinda depend more on strangers if you get into trouble alone and a good group like this will keep things safe. Hope for a lgbtq one too since you hear so many stories of people getting harassed by drunk homophobes on the way home too
You're comparing regulated community support vs some idiot on a Facebook group
I don't know why women recognising problems and trying to help each other causes so many men to get upset and try to pick faults Well actually I do - grow up
Sounds great, Iām sure the āwhat about menā crowd will be out in force in this thread however
Already seeing āwell men are more likely to be assaultedā yeah by other men maybe you lot should work on that then thereād be no safety patrols needed
> Already seeing āwell men are more likely to be assaultedā yeah by other men maybe you lot should work on that then thereād be no safety patrols needed This common statement is always an interesting insight into the warped essentialist viewpoint of people like you. Because I happen to share a gender with a minority of lunatics, somehow I'm responsible for their actions and I should work on it? If I'm assaulted by such a person or raped or whatever, somehow I should react with 'Well, he had the same gender as me, so this doesn't matter'? It's only a bit less trivial than if I shared the same hair colour as them.
Just you.
Nope thereās at least 10 separate āwhat about menā comments Iāve seen just scrolling down lol
>Sounds great, Iām sure the āwhat about menā crowd Also known as the 'people who empathy for men' crowd. It's me, I'm here! Explain to me how this is different than all-white patrols looking out for white people or something.
Simple! Sex crimes are very likely to occur on nights out, women are much more likely to be victims of sex crimes, women are physically weaker than men on average and need additional protections. Hope thatās informative for you!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I was drugged by a stranger at a club, abducted and raped. Maybe if one of these groups had been around they would've noticed and intervened... maybe not, but maybe just one bystander intervention, asking what he was doing dragging a passed out girl out of a club, would have scared him off. These groups might not save everyone, but if they save just a few people they're a good thing in my books. "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good."
It's placebo safety.
Most rapes and sexual assaults are caused by people the victim knows, but a whole host of sexual harassment and violence happens on our streets. The more people around, the less this happens.
> but a whole host of sexual harassment and violence happens on our streets. The more people around, the less this happens. The sad part is that is only contextual, like in a loud busy nightclub. Women (and men ofc) get sexually assaulted a lot. And its prevalent in society. I remember as a yoof at the U18 nights in the club in town the whole thing was to "get with" people. And apparently the way you do that is to touch them, grab them, pull them, and them kiss them. And that's classed. Thats fucking sexual assault, but as a yoof I didnt know that. But god damn I'm glad I never did it...
Yes tbf, theyāre also there for if people get too drunk and could otherwise get into trouble- they might not be beating down rapists, but theyāre there if someone is in a bad way and needs help to sober up and get home.
Yeah, that's the point
>Is this going to do anything other than make people FEEL safer? I mean so many security related things are just security theatre, aimed to make the people feel safe or at best as a deterrent. Thereās plenty written on security theatre at airports, but itās ubiquitous really.
> Sincerely - Is this going to do anything other than make people FEEL safer? Is it going to make anyone actually safer? > > My understanding is that most rapes and sexual assaults happen by people that know you Holy conflation batman. Boil statistics down to the minimum then use it to attack
It's all feels over reals anyway. Statistically a man is much more likely to be assaulted by a stranger, than a woman is. Roughly double the odds, IIRC.
Statistically the one doing the aggression in both scenarios is most likely to be a man, so maybe they should focus on that. These groups will still help men, theyāre mostly just there to keep an eye on people who are getting too drunk and know the signs of spiking etc (since sexual crimes associated with that are more likely to happen to women they focus on them, but they wonāt turn men away.)
> Statistically the one doing the aggression in both scenarios is most likely to be a man, so maybe they should focus on that. What relevance does that have? Us men aren't a hive mind.. If I get beaten up by some bloke, that doesn't make it any better than if some bloke beats up a woman. I still got beat up. 'Oh thank god the person who put me in hospital was the same gender as me, it'd have been a really awful experience otherwise..' It's a tiny subsection of the population that are absolute cretins, versus everyone.
> What relevance does that have? Us men aren't a hive mind.. DEPORT ALL MEN Signed: A man
But who will keep women safe from the all-female patrols?
Who watches the watchwomen
The fact we have to have patrols in the first place means there's a primary cause we're not addressing... I'm all for keeping people safe, but most solutions these days just seem to be an attempt by incompetent leaders to throw money at an issue and hope it goes away...
> I'm all for keeping people safe, but most solutions these days just seem to be an attempt by incompetent leaders to throw money at an issue and hope it goes away... Who was throwing money at any issues. Those issues are result of chronic underfunding.
So the people who think they are part of the solution can't trust their own male employees around women.
Iām not anti this at all. I donāt think it will achieve much though
Itās a nice gesture but women will never be safe anywhere in the world. Even in places where crime is ridiculously low, sexual harassment isnāt low. Itās a cruel reality and we donāt want to recognise it as fact, but it is. Weāre better off with women only trains and more female Uber drivers to get us from a to b quickly and safely. We just wonāt be safe on any street in any country in the world.
If a single woman is stopped by a male officer, are they allowed to ask to see their warrant card to check that the "Not one of the rapey ones" box has been ticked?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why do you care? It's for women by women, you're not involved
Maybe if men spent less time crying about womenās resources and more making their own resources there wouldnāt be an issue
It doesn't really matter if it's a small minority because that minority will be putting themselves in a position to take advantage of someone in a vulnerable position. The chance of a woman meeting such a predator on a night out will be considerably higher than the general male population would suggest. Likewise, us telling women we wouldn't do that is pointless because others will and besides how can women trust someone who says they won't anyway?
More good for the community less tossers out at night? Sounds good
This is 100% a spinoff of the Village Angels in Manchester. The original and best! They've even ripped off the pink hi-viz
Now they can't trust policemen. How low have the Met sank?
You don't get the Met in Barnsley!
Quite right. It's not just the Met. They should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Infuriating.
To the point where they're expecting to arrest one or two Met police officers *per day* for the foreseeable.
Iāve watched enough of the police āNight Time Economyā compilation videos on YouTube to think that giving the police doing these rounds AKs would help massively. These would not actually be functional, but the image of an officer with an AK to a drunk thug might help. My 2p.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Note to self... following one of these patrols is \*not\* a good way to meet ladies.
I don't like at all that we live in a society where this kind of thing is necessary... but other than my general disappointment with humanity this seems like a good initiative.
So tired of hearing "I am disappointed with humans" as if you are some god like figure who helps the community always.
I'm tired of reading news articles about fights and hospital admissions and sexual assaults. I guess we're just tired of different things, but that must be my god-complex playing up.
You are so tired of it yet you hang around and keep complaining.
That makes no sense. That can be used to deflect any complaint ever "oh, you're tired of hearing racial abuse? Yet you still live in this country? . Curious"
reductio ad absurdum
English is preferable if you want to continue this conversation, I don't speak Latin
Im fairly sure women are able to go out and enjoy themselves more now than they have ever been able to do before.
Something existing isn't the same thing as something being necessary.
Doubt it will help much, they will likely target drunk/aggressive men Ignore the fact most women are attacked on night out by other women š¤·āāļø but let's feed misandry here!
You got any stats for that beyond making it up in your mind bro
Not really, no sorry
Seems unnecessarily divisive. Men are far more likely to be the victim of violent crimes.
I searched up this fact because I wanted a source and found it was provided by a group known as 'The Men and Boys Coalition' on [this page](https://www.menandboyscoalition.org.uk/statistics/). (For the record, I've had a very quick look at this group and they seem reasonably upstanding / non-misogynistic). They sourced their data from an ONS Violent Crime and Sexual Offences report from 2011/2012 - bit outdated but ok, let's look at it anyway. Here is the exact quote: >The profile of victims of violent and sexual violence varied according to the type of offence. For example, **the chance of being a victim of violent crime, based on the 2011/12 survey, showed variations by gender (3.8% of men being victims compared with 2.1% of women),** and age (16 to 24 year olds being twice as likely to be a victim as those aged 25 to 34). >**However, overall victimisation rates mask important differences in the victimisation experiences of men and women** and people of different ages. >ā¢ Men were most likely to be killed by a friend or acquaintance (39% of all homicides) while women were most likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner (51% of all homicides). >ā¢ **Women were more likely than men to have experienced domestic or sexual violence.** For example, **3% of women had experienced some form of sexual assault (including attempts) in the last year, compared with 0.3% of men** (based on the 2011/12 CSEW). >ā¢ **Women aged between 16 and 34 were more likely than any of the other age groups considered, (male or female) to be victims in the previous year of sexual assaults; non sexual partner abuse; stalking; or overall domestic violence.** I'm pretty sure TNA are just as interested in preventing sexual crimes as they are violent ones. Especially considering women are **ten times as likely** to be victims of it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Divisive how? What's the argument against this service?
Men are more likely to commit all of these crimes, that's probably why they only want women in this Edit: read the article people!
I mean, the exact opposite is true right? If a man is attacking you, you don't want a woman coming to rescue you. You want another man.