Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Define social taboo.

However, your post, Huguenot, is appropriate and I agree.

Long as we know what social taboo is.

I am equally as interested in what the real reaction was.

Did jollybaby - who admits to initial shock - shout at the boy?

Or did he run off immediately after so he might not hear her?

No problem in admitting getting a kick from being spanked by a stranger in the out of doors, but this was not planned!


I agree, the kid needs to be caught, and spanked...! Course, he'll probably enjoy it. So then what.

Thank the lord he didn't also wolf-whistle at poor old JollyBaby too...after all publicy admiring a beautiful woman is now a sin that was cast out of society many years ago.....


Playing Devils Avocado here....(something I expect to be thrown back at me)


It always makes me wonder if good looking women were the ones who didn't like the building site workers wolf-whistling at them ... or was it the not so good looking ones who didn't like the building site workers NOT wolf-whistling at them...

I'm really surprised at people's laissez-faire reactions to this here. I find it difficult to see how the kid was merely being 'cheeky'. Huguenot summed up my feelings better than I could have expressed them. And the fact that this was done by a schoolkid apparently when on his own and not amongst his peers makes this behaviour all the more alarming.

Taken on it's own I can agree with you and Huguenot, jcgt


I guess I'm being more laid back about it because the slapee seems fine with it - I trust them to have asessed the situation for what it was. Ditto when some girls did the same to me a few months back I maybe SHOULD have been worried - if nothing else because I might have been set-up. And nor am I saying his behavious doesn't need correction


But given all that, it might have been less dramatic than a worst-case-scenario. I recall being wildly innappropriate when I was a similar age on a few very rare occassions and I don't think I have turned to more threatening crimes over several decades. I'm inclined to believe Brendan's scenario

Can I confirm that 1) I am a woman and 2) no I didn't confront the boy. It was all over so quickly and by the time I really grasped what had happened I was a good few metres away from him down the road. I thought about turning round to say something but is seemed so innocent and unthreatening at the time. I have been in far more uncomfortable situations around ED in the past.


When I say I felt chuffed - I didn't want to imply that I got some form of sexual gratification from the event or have any interest in teenage boys. It just seemed like a bit of a compliment - and I have been working hard to lose a few pounds!


I agree it's not usual behaviour to slap stangers' bottoms in the street and perhaps I should have reacted more strongly to the event. That was in part why I posted on this forum as I was interested in other people's thoughts.

It's a weird thing this kind of encounter. I tried to do some counselling once but as those who know me would know, I can be a bit abrupt when faced with rational dislocations.... "It's terrible but primally satisfying".


We're an incredibly liberal forum, but we need to accept at some point that not all things are relative. We draw lines in the sand to establish an equality of identity, for example freedom and responsibility are equal partners.


We reserve the freedom to behave like aimless gibbons (bum slapping neanderthals), but are aware that without demonstrating our responsiblity to mutual empowerment we'd still be punching the ground around waterholes with bison bones. So we don't goose arses.


We can't indulge the bum slappers without recognising that in doing so we sacrifice the concept of society at every level: mutual respect and reasoned group solutions.


I can't imagine that most readers think that responding with a smile means one is generating criminality (what??? short skirts and sexual assault????), but we should probably recommend that the visceral response should be suspended if we're not going to egg on a generation of inappropriate copy cats?

I don't think it's fair to imply that jollybaby is in some way guilty for not having a go at the kid. She was clearly taken aback by the whole thing, and didn't get a chance to react. That's not the same thing as encouraging the kid.


And it's OK for jollybaby to feel flattered, but she's not saying that it makes it all OK. I think most of us would agree that the kid was out of order (by how much is a matter of opinion). It's pointless comparing the situation to a girl smacking a guy's bum - apply some common sense and you'll realise that it's not the same thing!

If the sexes had been reversed and a 14/15 year old schoolgirl had been given a "firm slap" by a 30 year old man, would all the "lighten-up-luv/it's-political-correctness-gone-mad" brigade feel the same way? Some teenage girls doubtless would feel "chuffed" to receive that kind of attention.


Can men just walk around saying "nice bum" and slapping anyone they take a shine to? If not, why not? Where are your boundaries?

LuvPeckham Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thank the lord he didn't also wolf-whistle at poor

> old JollyBaby too...after all publicy admiring a

> beautiful woman is now a sin that was cast out of

> society many years ago.....

>

> Playing Devils Avocado here....(something I expect

> to be thrown back at me)

>

> It always makes me wonder if good looking women

> were the ones who didn't like the building site

> workers wolf-whistling at them ... or was it the

> not so good looking ones who didn't like the

> building site workers NOT wolf-whistling at

> them...


OK, so you only said this to get a rise, LuvPeckham, but I can't let it go unremarked.


The trouble is, not everyone reacts the same way, so almost anyone can honestly quote almost any response to justify whatever they think is right. My take on it is that sometimes a woman can be whistled at and it can make her feel happy and attractive. Another can feel cheapened, threatened, reduced to an object, belittled or even ashamed. Because the latter is rather more impactful than the former, and because basically it's bad manners to call names out to strangers (even if in your view you're paying them compliments) it's generally frowned on these days.


But to suggest that ugly women are jealous of pretty women and therefore 'got it banned' is pretty cheap. Sarah Palin's supporters have been throwing that line out to female media-types "you don't like her because you're just jealous: she's successful and she's pretty". Play nicely now...

I presumed that there was some kind of general consensus that these kind of things are socially unacceptable, but it doesn't mean that everybody is going to accept these rules. I wondered if the kid was getting a thrill from deliberately doing something that he knew was wrong and breaking through normal social boundaries. I've certainly done things, which in the cold of day would be considered wrong, expecially when I was growing up. I tend to avoid these situations, mainly due to the acute embarassment felt afterwards.


Jollybaby reacted in one way, but it would have been with her rights to castigate the kid or even take it further.


I wouldn't defend what this boy did, but I wonder how many of us would feel rather chuffed when somebody is giving us the eye, shouts sexy at us, whistles, pay us a compliment or even gives us a quick slap on the backside?


Playing devil's advocate, do we worry too much about these things, that we end up living in a bubble and ignore the people who live and work around us.

I agree with Huggie- I think it could show a lack of respect and if not challenged could lead to more obnoxious, dangerous or illegal behaviour later on.


I had a 12 year old try feel me up when I was working as a youth worker and when I dragged him by the scruff of his neck and threatened to beat him up, he tried to get me sacked - brought his big misogynist father down to threaten me too.


My daughters have had to put up with little tw@ts in their secodary school trying to get familiar and my son beat up a few guys because of it. I don't think many older people realise how disrespectful to females some young MTV-age guys are nowadys.


Uninvited sexual attention is not funny.


If the sexes had been reversed and a 14/15 year old schoolgirl had been given a "firm slap" by a 30 year old man, would all the "lighten-up-luv/it's-political-correctness-gone-mad" brigade feel the same way?



And if the sexes were reversed again and the 14/15 year old schoolgirl gave a "firm slap" to a 30 year old man, would you still be sitting on your high horse?

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > If the sexes had been reversed and a 14/15 year

> old schoolgirl had been given a "firm slap" by a

> 30 year old man, would all the

> "lighten-up-luv/it's-political-correctness-gone-mad"

> brigade feel the same way?

>

> And if the sexes were reversed again and the 14/15

> year old schoolgirl gave a "firm slap" to a 30

> year old man, would you still be sitting on your

> high horse?


"High horse"? Not at all: I simply believe that it's rude and bad-mannered to slap strangers, regardless of sex or age.


Now I've answered your question, would you answer mine?

This thread is really interesting. I appreciate people's honesty.

On the subject of wolf whistles from scaffolders: Kathy Burke once said (and I am sure I remember this right because I remember thinking that I feel exactly the same way) when she walked along the road and heard scaffolders wolf whistling, she knew there must be a prettier woman behind her.

An innoncent wolf whistle can make my day (when I check there is no-one else around) but then when I look up to them, they say "Oh God, put yer helmet back ON, love. Yer ruined me day." And thus, so is mine.

I simply believe that it's rude and bad-mannered to slap strangers, regardless of sex or age.


In that case, we're probably on the same wavelength, though using phrases like "lighten-up-luv/it's-political-correctness-gone-mad" doesn't help to explain your position and does tend to seat you on fairly tall animal of the equine variety. I assumed that you had the same thoughts as Jeremy - if [cultural pigeon-hole 1] slaps [cultural pigeon-hole 2] then it's a terribly Bad Thing, but the reverse is somehow OK.


Anyway, I think the original perpetrator is in for a rude shock next time he heads out to Goosing Green. Sounds like there is going to be a hoard of ED ladies waiting for him. More like 'Benny Hill' than 'On The Buses', Snorky.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Oh, go on then Jeremy... enlighten me. What are these 'obvious reasons'?


Quite simply... a woman is more likely to feel physically threatened by a man than vice versa. I don't think I'm being controversial here, am I?

Now if I could turn back the clock by 3 days would I do anything differently - probably not (well perhaps maybe not write such a light hearted original post) He was clearly after a reaction and ignoring him seemed the better option at the time. And as I said before it didn't seem threatening but more cheeky at the time- far less degrading then when someone 'grinds' against you on the dance floor of a crowded night club (and I WOULD say something then).


Does my lack of reaction mean that he is more or less likely to do it again - who can say. I think you could argue the case either way. Or is my response a sad indicament of the time we live in - when people no longer chastise wrong doing 'youths' for fear of being abused or because of a feeling that it won't make a blind bit of difference.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...