• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

 West Ham

Jumpers4Goalposts said:
I am not saying these women were asking for it but.......
Click to expand...

There is no but. There is no excuse for someone rape. No excuse for touching. No excuse for sexual assault. No excuse for anyone to think they can do what they like to someone else.

A women, child (or man as this exists and is hugely under reported) should be able to wear what they like, work where they like, and act how they like, without anyone having the right to have any sexual contact with them without their explicit, and continued consent.

I thought the days where we blamed women because of what they wore, or the fact that they drunk too much, or that they went back to someone's house with them were long behind us. The idea that if "women know what they're getting in to" or "choosing to work in that environment" then they no longer have the right to say no is not only shocking, but frankly disgusting.

And sadly, it is these attitudes that mean that many victims don't come forward to report sexual offences. And when they do, these victims are either failed by inept police investigations or failed by the courts who seem to spend more time investigate the sexual history of the victim than they do of the offender. Victims are not believed, blamed or shamed - not just by the perpetrator but by society - some of whom are sadly on here.

Jumpers4Goalposts said:
In a case like this he probably deserves a jury of 12 women and gets what is coming to him.
Click to expand...

I get the point you're making, but again this implies that only women think that sexual offending is wrong. I would hope that we shouldn't need to "fix" a jury in order to get justice and that men should also make judgements on the evidence presented without resorting to some of the dated and embarrassing views that some incredibly still hold.
 
Scotchegg said:
There is no but. There is no excuse for someone rape. No excuse for touching. No excuse for sexual assault. No excuse for anyone to think they can do what they like to someone else.

A women, child (or man as this exists and is hugely under reported) should be able to wear what they like, work where they like, and act how they like, without anyone having the right to have any sexual contact with them without their explicit, and continued consent.

I thought the days where we blamed women because of what they wore, or the fact that they drunk too much, or that they went back to someone's house with them were long behind us. The idea that if "women know what they're getting in to" or "choosing to work in that environment" then they no longer have the right to say no is not only shocking, but frankly disgusting.

And sadly, it is these attitudes that mean that many victims don't come forward to report sexual offences. And when they do, these victims are either failed by inept police investigations or failed by the courts who seem to spend more time investigate the sexual history of the victim than they do of the offender. Victims are not believed, blamed or shamed - not just by the perpetrator but by society - some of whom are sadly on here.



I get the point you're making, but again this implies that only women think that sexual offending is wrong. I would hope that we shouldn't need to "fix" a jury in order to get justice and that men should also make judgements on the evidence presented without resorting to some of the dated and embarrassing views that some incredibly still hold.
Click to expand...
Yes, it sometimes seems like some men reflexively side with other men - why would they do that? They have mothers and very probably wives so it’s not like they live in some macho all-male world.
 
Scotchegg said:
There is no but. There is no excuse for someone rape. No excuse for touching. No excuse for sexual assault. No excuse for anyone to think they can do what they like to someone else.

A women, child (or man as this exists and is hugely under reported) should be able to wear what they like, work where they like, and act how they like, without anyone having the right to have any sexual contact with them without their explicit, and continued consent.

I thought the days where we blamed women because of what they wore, or the fact that they drunk too much, or that they went back to someone's house with them were long behind us. The idea that if "women know what they're getting in to" or "choosing to work in that environment" then they no longer have the right to say no is not only shocking, but frankly disgusting.

And sadly, it is these attitudes that mean that many victims don't come forward to report sexual offences. And when they do, these victims are either failed by inept police investigations or failed by the courts who seem to spend more time investigate the sexual history of the victim than they do of the offender. Victims are not believed, blamed or shamed - not just by the perpetrator but by society - some of whom are sadly on here.



I get the point you're making, but again this implies that only women think that sexual offending is wrong. I would hope that we shouldn't need to "fix" a jury in order to get justice and that men should also make judgements on the evidence presented without resorting to some of the dated and embarrassing views that some incredibly still hold.
Click to expand...

Nobody has said that at all.

Every person , man, woman, child has the right to say no at any stage.

Unfortunately you are in such a rush to reach the moral high ground it is ridiculous,many people would have a far higher opinion of your thoughts if you stopped making such crass statements.

Accept the fact that some women chose to enter an industry that, by its nature, is predominantly operated by men who see women as a commodity not a person.

And with that choice comes risk.
 
Scotchegg said:
I'd rather take the moral high ground than defend scumbags that sexually abuse women.
Click to expand...

Who is "defending" his actions? Nobody.

Do you not think the women knew what the environment would be like? Attractive, impressionable young women and wealthy, powerful men.......selling sex.

As has been pointed out if you don`t look when you cross the road you might get run over, therefore you mitigate risk by looking.

The world is not all sweetness and light.

It doesn`t make what he (allegedly) did right but every one of those women had the right to say no or walk away.
 
Essexyellows said:
Who is "defending" his actions? Nobody.

Do you not think the women knew what the environment would be like? Attractive, impressionable young women and wealthy, powerful men.......selling sex.

As has been pointed out if you don`t look when you cross the road you might get run over, therefore you mitigate risk by looking.

The world is not all sweetness and light.

It doesn`t make what he (allegedly) did right but every one of those women had the right to say no or walk away.
Click to expand...

Scotchegg said:
I'd rather take the moral high ground than defend scumbags that sexually abuse women.
Click to expand...
 
Essexyellows said:
Who is "defending" his actions? Nobody.

Do you not think the women knew what the environment would be like? Attractive, impressionable young women and wealthy, powerful men.......selling sex.

As has been pointed out if you don`t look when you cross the road you might get run over, therefore you mitigate risk by looking.

The world is not all sweetness and light.

It doesn`t make what he (allegedly) did right but every one of those women had the right to say no or walk away.
Click to expand...
It's a bit difficult if the women are (allegedly) locked in the room during their meetings and not let out until they give him what he wants.
 
Steve Gilbert said:
It's a bit difficult if the women are (allegedly) locked in the room during their meetings and not let out until they give him what he wants.
Click to expand...

Having the right to say no, and the power to do so are two very different things. Perpetrators of these kinds of offences often look to control their victims through physical dominance, perceived dominance through power, position or wealth, or by incapacitating them through drink, drugs or preying on emotional vulnerabilities.

The idea that the victims of these offences all have the power, strength or capability to say no, or whether this would even make a difference, is not only living in a fantasy world, but they are part of a culture that allows for this to happen.
 
Essexyellows said:
Who is "defending" his actions? Nobody.

Do you not think the women knew what the environment would be like? Attractive, impressionable young women and wealthy, powerful men.......selling sex.

As has been pointed out if you don`t look when you cross the road you might get run over, therefore you mitigate risk by looking.

The world is not all sweetness and light.

It doesn`t make what he (allegedly) did right but every one of those women had the right to say no or walk away.
Click to expand...

Tell that to some of the victims of Andrew Tate & co.
 
Scotchegg said:
Having the right to say no, and the power to do so are two very different things. Perpetrators of these kinds of offences often look to control their victims through physical dominance, perceived dominance through power, position or wealth, or by incapacitating them through drink, drugs or preying on emotional vulnerabilities.

The idea that the victims of these offences all have the power, strength or capability to say no, or whether this would even make a difference, is not only living in a fantasy world, but they are part of a culture that allows for this to happen.
Click to expand...
This.
 
Scotchegg said:
I'd rather take the moral high ground than defend scumbags that sexually abuse women.
Click to expand...
Scotch !

I don’t think I have ever seen such a misrepresentation of the thoughts and words of two different posters in order to promote their own moral high ground.

Both myself and @Essexyellows have made our point that we disagree with what the perpetrator may have done. Neither of us has defended Sullivan.

The issue is that some people get too snowflakey about the world they live in and can’t accept others pointing out the bleeding obvious in this harsh world.
 
Jumpers4Goalposts said:
Scotch !

I don’t think I have ever seen such a misrepresentation of the thoughts and words of two different posters in order to promote their own moral high ground.

Both myself and @Essexyellows have made our point that we disagree with what the perpetrator may have done. Neither of us has defended Sullivan.

The issue is that some people get too snowflakey about the world they live in and can’t accept others pointing out the bleeding obvious in this harsh world.
Click to expand...

Snowflakey? Moral High Ground? When did these become a bad thing?

You have both used the analogy of if you walk in front of a vehicle without looking then you should expect to be hit. The implication is that if you also enter the property of someone who is in the porn industry then you should expect to be raped, sexually assaulted or taken advantage of. You are suggesting that the man (as they overwhelmingly are) has no control over their actions, and that is excusing their actions.

The fact that you can't see this and try to make me (and others) out to be the problem is embarrassing.

To be clear, it's really simple.

The ONLY person responsible for a rape is the rapist.
The ONLY person responsible for sexual offending is the person carrying out that sexual offence.
The ONLY person responsible for the control and coercive behaviour that preys on the vulnerable is the perpetrator of these offences.

But everyone who disbelieves the victims, looks to deflect the blame on to the victims, or tries to shame the victims because of the job they do, or the clothes they wear, THEY are responsible for enabling others to commit their offences.
 
Scotch

I never implied the entering of the property of the porn industry is an expectation to get raped.

I don’t know why you seem to be getting a kick out of making up things people are saying or implying they are saying these things.

You really are a stupid person.
I can’t argue with stupid.

I would tell you to f**k off but I cannot be arsed.
 
Scotchegg said:
Snowflakey? Moral High Ground? When did these become a bad thing?

You have both used the analogy of if you walk in front of a vehicle without looking then you should expect to be hit. The implication is that if you also enter the property of someone who is in the porn industry then you should expect to be raped, sexually assaulted or taken advantage of. You are suggesting that the man (as they overwhelmingly are) has no control over their actions, and that is excusing their actions.

The fact that you can't see this and try to make me (and others) out to be the problem is embarrassing.

To be clear, it's really simple.

The ONLY person responsible for a rape is the rapist.
The ONLY person responsible for sexual offending is the person carrying out that sexual offence.
The ONLY person responsible for the control and coercive behaviour that preys on the vulnerable is the perpetrator of these offences.

But everyone who disbelieves the victims, looks to deflect the blame on to the victims, or tries to shame the victims because of the job they do, or the clothes they wear, THEY are responsible for enabling others to commit their offences.
Click to expand...

In your head maybe.

Nobody has said the man has no control over their actions.

Nobody disbelieves the victims.

Nobody is deflecting blame onto victims.

Nobody is "enabling others".

People are saying that choices made can put people at a far,far higher risk of the potential for becoming a victim. Hence the bus analogy.

As an alternative........... you have a nice Rolex and go for a walk alone at midnight in certain parts of London after a couple of drinks........... the risk of becoming a victim of a high value street robbery has escalated a lot.

Its not a difficult thought process............
 
Essexyellows said:
In your head maybe.

Nobody has said the man has no control over their actions.

Nobody disbelieves the victims.

Nobody is deflecting blame onto victims.

Nobody is "enabling others".

People are saying that choices made can put people at a far,far higher risk of the potential for becoming a victim. Hence the bus analogy.

As an alternative........... you have a nice Rolex and go for a walk alone at midnight in certain parts of London after a couple of drinks........... the risk of becoming a victim of a high value street robbery has escalated a lot.

Its not a difficult thought process............
Click to expand...
This is so true.

Unfortunately the likes of Scotch will wear that watch and after being attacked (wrongly of course) will be looking for someone to blame for the crime.

Of course it is your choice to wear that watch Scotch and the consequences could be devastating. We would hope that you would be safe but we could not guarantee that. That is so sad and so wrong.

We can only educate some people so much.
 
Jumpers4Goalposts said:
This is so true.

Unfortunately the likes of Scotch will wear that watch and after being attacked (wrongly of course) will be looking for someone to blame for the crime.

Of course it is your choice to wear that watch Scotch and the consequences could be devastating. We would hope that you would be safe but we could not guarantee that. That is so sad and so wrong.

We can only educate some people so much.
Click to expand...
The person to blame for the crime would be the person who stole the watch!
 
Steve Gilbert said:
The person to blame for the crime would be the person who stole the watch!
Click to expand...

Most crime would not happen if the opportunity to commit it was harder and more likely to lead to consequences.

Ergo we see staff sacked for tackling shoplifters and the police not bothering if its under £200.

Opportunity is "easier" (staff won`t stop you) plod won`t bother if you grab some steak, cheese etc then flog it for the next wrap of drugs.

No consequence leads to more drug crime etc etc etc.

Back on track WHU have issued a statement ................

"As such, we have reached agreement on the key terms of a share purchase transaction between the Gold family and 1890 Holdings, which, subject to other shareholders’ pre-emption rights and necessary approvals, would make 1890 Holdings (part of the broader group EP) the largest shareholder in West Ham with an approximately 43% stake.

“As the largest shareholder, group EP will be able to provide the additional financing the club needs."

I mean Daniel Kretinsky is doing such a great job at Royal Fail the West Ham fans must be elated......................................
 
chuckbert said:
So we have 2 threads going, one likening being a woman in the porn industry to flaunting a Rolex, and another thread saying that business can’t afford to pay young people a living wage. I wonder if these power imbalances resulting in exploitation could possibly be linked?
Click to expand...
Ha which is the business thread ? I tend to avoid threads that will obviously be full of Reform rats.

It does seem pretty evident that some people here are not in fact concerned to ‘protect our women and children’.
 
Scotchegg said:
There is no but. There is no excuse for someone rape. No excuse for touching. No excuse for sexual assault. No excuse for anyone to think they can do what they like to someone else.

A women, child (or man as this exists and is hugely under reported) should be able to wear what they like, work where they like, and act how they like, without anyone having the right to have any sexual contact with them without their explicit, and continued consent.

I thought the days where we blamed women because of what they wore, or the fact that they drunk too much, or that they went back to someone's house with them were long behind us. The idea that if "women know what they're getting in to" or "choosing to work in that environment" then they no longer have the right to say no is not only shocking, but frankly disgusting.

And sadly, it is these attitudes that mean that many victims don't come forward to report sexual offences. And when they do, these victims are either failed by inept police investigations or failed by the courts who seem to spend more time investigate the sexual history of the victim than they do of the offender. Victims are not believed, blamed or shamed - not just by the perpetrator but by society - some of whom are sadly on here.



I get the point you're making, but again this implies that only women think that sexual offending is wrong. I would hope that we shouldn't need to "fix" a jury in order to get justice and that men should also make judgements on the evidence presented without resorting to some of the dated and embarrassing views that some incredibly still hold.
Click to expand...
Well said @Scotchegg
 
Scotchegg said:
There is no but. There is no excuse for someone rape. No excuse for touching. No excuse for sexual assault. No excuse for anyone to think they can do what they like to someone else.

A women, child (or man as this exists and is hugely under reported) should be able to wear what they like, work where they like, and act how they like, without anyone having the right to have any sexual contact with them without their explicit, and continued consent.

I thought the days where we blamed women because of what they wore, or the fact that they drunk too much, or that they went back to someone's house with them were long behind us. The idea that if "women know what they're getting in to" or "choosing to work in that environment" then they no longer have the right to say no is not only shocking, but frankly disgusting.

And sadly, it is these attitudes that mean that many victims don't come forward to report sexual offences. And when they do, these victims are either failed by inept police investigations or failed by the courts who seem to spend more time investigate the sexual history of the victim than they do of the offender. Victims are not believed, blamed or shamed - not just by the perpetrator but by society - some of whom are sadly on here.



I get the point you're making, but again this implies that only women think that sexual offending is wrong. I would hope that we shouldn't need to "fix" a jury in order to get justice and that men should also make judgements on the evidence presented without resorting to some of the dated and embarrassing views that some incredibly still hold.
Click to expand...
Spot on mate 👏

Sickens me that there are people who are incapable of understanding this. We all know victims, even if we're not aware of it. And why do such a high percentage of them not talk about it? Because of the absolute troglodytes who still go around accusing them of having brought it upon themselves, the worry of not being believed and validated, and the fear of being tarnished as anything other than what they are - a human being who has been horrifically mistreated against their will, regardless of the situation they were in.
 
Sheik Djibouti said:
What was it people were saying about Only Fans?

BBC News - OnlyFans 'agents' exploit creators while taking half their earnings, BBC finds - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk

OnlyFans 'agents' exploit creators while taking half their earnings, BBC finds

Dozens of women on OnlyFans describe being exploited by managers who promised to help maximise profits.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
I mentioned them, saying they gave women the possibility to take control and earn a living from the safety of their own home. Seems like in this case the woman handed over a big part of that control to an external agency, who then used that control over her to treat her in an abusive way. So not at all a counter-argument to what is said.

And yet despite willingly handing over that control, it is still entirely not her fault that she was treated like that, and disgusting that she was.
 
Emilio said:
I mentioned them, saying they gave women the possibility to take control and earn a living from the safety of their own home. Seems like in this case the woman handed over a big part of that control to an external agency, who then used that control over her to treat her in an abusive way. So not at all a counter-argument to what is said.

And yet despite willingly handing over that control, it is still entirely not her fault that she was treated like that, and disgusting that she was.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

It's the illusion of control. The reality is that vulnerable people are still vulnerable to exploitation. Those who exploit, along with those who enable the exploiters are the real problem.
 
Sheik Djibouti said:
What was it people were saying about OnlyFans?

BBC News - OnlyFans 'agents' exploit creators while taking half their earnings, BBC finds - BBC News
www.bbc.co.uk

OnlyFans 'agents' exploit creators while taking half their earnings, BBC finds

Dozens of women on OnlyFans describe being exploited by managers who promised to help maximise profits.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Would that be because a third party (manager making false promises) intervened?

The third party promises increased business and the content creator sees the £££ signs.

Had she operated her own account she retains control of her choices. 🤷‍♂️

Another BBC article.....

www.bbc.co.uk

Financial losses from scams hit £1.3bn a year as criminals turn to AI

On average, nearly eight cases of fraud in which money is stolen are reported in the UK every minute.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
  • Losses to investment scams soared by 40% in a year, to a new record high

Promise "endless riches" and some peoples natural greed kicks in and there will always be someone to take advantage of it.

The world is not all sweetness and light and there are plenty of people more than willing to gain at a cost to others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

T
West Ham
Replies
0
Views
920
The Voice Of Reason
T
ZeroTheHero
Other European West Ham Supporters
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Toe knee
Toe knee
Marked Ox
Europa League Well Conference LG: West Ham/AZ aftermath
Replies
8
Views
2K
Bitter
Bitter
Essexyellows
Kurt Zouma - West Ham
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
makv
makv
Sarge
West Ham latest signing
Replies
2
Views
2K
Oldham
Oldham
Back
Top Bottom