Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I for one do not want or need to be told this fact when it is gratuitous and unhelpful. "Black" is no more valid as a single descriptor than "white". Agree with Honk and the others who have questioned why this was mentioned at all. Given the closeness of the encounter that seems to have taken place, I would have thought if the OP was trying to offer a useful description, they would have included some or all of these: age, height, build, hair style, hair colour, eye colour, accent, clothing...?


I am sure the woman involved was genuinely scared for her own reasons. This is obviously why she wanted the anecdote passed on to the wider community, but not sure how it was supposed to help.

I think what a lot of people are missing here is that the guy was following her, then she stopped, forcing him to walk on then she went in a different direction to get away from him and he was running up the street (with his suitcase) straight at her. This IS scary, whether or not his is a nut job or needs locking up is not really what the poster was trying to judge, she was just (kindly) informing women to be cautius.

Also there is a BIG difference between giving a woman flowers who you haven't met and running at someone and creepely saying you like their boots.....

Having been attacked in the street at 6pm at night (with people round the corner) before I know how terrifying it is. Yes she got away ok, but this is threatening behaviour and it is good to highlight it.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Apparently you're not allowed to mention race

> these days when describing someone. In fact, I'm

> surprised the OP got away with saying that it was

> a man.


Looking at the original post (I'll get one of my identikit guys on this asap) I've got 'black man' and 'wheely suitcase' to go on.


Presuming he might sometimes leave the house without his luggage, that just leaves 'black man' to go on. Which is ridiculous.


It was an irrelevant detail to accompany a vague description forming part of an even vaguer post alerting us to the existence of someone who hadn't actually committed an offence, who may or may not live in the area.


Keep your eyes peeled.

I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant detail. It is helpful in the description as it then excludes potential suspects of different races hence their search for the offender is narrowed..


I think there are people just being outright argumentative on this thread for seemingly no particular reason and they may have failed to notice but you are not really achieving much either!

Strawbs Wrote:

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

> I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant

> detail. It is helpful in the description as it

> then excludes potential suspects of different

> races hence their search for the offender is

> narrowed..

>


This doesn't get past the fact that the post basically warns forumites to 'be wary of black men', given lack of any other detail.


If you have a bogeyman story to share, perhaps give better detail in future, that way I'll know who to go chasing after with my pitchfork.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> I agree, it is not especially useful without any

> further description (height, approx age) to go

> on.

>

> But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a blond

> haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on that.



perhaps that's because discrimination on the basis of race is a problem and discrimination on the basis of height or hair colour isn't (IMO)?


do you not appreciate that some people have negative stereotypes about black people (or perhaps people of certain religions) that they do not have about tall or blond people?

Hence my point about the "fullest" description.

One feature alone is insufficient(although anything that narrows it down can only be a plus point if there is genuine reason for concern.


Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is running off and crosses the road.


All a bystander can see about the obvious assailant is his skin colour.

Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical example, would someone really say that as the only feature available is his skin colour then that should NOT be mentioned?

pk Wrote:

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

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I agree, it is not especially useful without

> any

> > further description (height, approx age) to go

> > on.

> >

> > But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a

> blond

> > haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on

> that.

>

>

> perhaps that's because discrimination on the basis

> of race is a problem and discrimination on the

> basis of height or hair colour isn't (IMO)?

>

> do you not appreciate that some people have

> negative stereotypes about black people (or

> perhaps people of certain religions) that they do

> not have about tall or blond people?


That is true, in some cases, but if a crime(not talking now about this "incident" ) has definitely been committed surely one has to weigh up the safety and warning aspects against the fact that if the description of the Suspect happens to be Black then it should not be mentioned because "some" people have negative stereotypes about Black people?

I cant believe some of you are being such idiots!


It was just a warning for any women walking around ED on their own and BOB clearly you are single, or should be, chivalry is dead!!


This man may not be dangerous or he might be! You do not run at a single woman, walking along a dark street, on their own shouting "dont be scared", if you are sane and rational, especially wearing the ugly boots she was wearing! But more worrying he doubled back down LL to follow her and lifted the suitcase so she didnt hear the wheels!


It doesnt matter what colour his skin was, what he said or how he behaved the fact is he is clearly troubled and who knows where his mental state is going, so Ladies be careful!

Yes I realise that pk... doesn't change the fact that "black", "asian", "white", etc are all perfectly valid and inoffensive ways of describing someone. So the OP didn't include any other description... lack of detail is not a crime.


By all means continue to preach over-the-top PCness if it makes you feel better about yourself. I should have known better than to get involved...

> Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is

> running off and crosses the road.

>

> All a bystander can see about the obvious

> assailant is his skin colour.

> Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical

> example, would someone really say that as the only

> feature available is his skin colour then that

> should NOT be mentioned?



In that case it would be relevant, as rape was a crime last time I checked. A police enquiry presumably conducted to a protocol would be launched, involving witness reports, CCTV footage etc.


In this case someone is warning people on an internet forum to be wary of black men.


To conclude I would say yes, there is a difference.

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Yes I realise that pk... doesn't change the fact

> that "black", "asian", "white", etc are all

> perfectly valid and inoffensive ways of describing

> someone.


in certain circumstances i agree, have i suggested otherwise?


So the OP didn't include any other

> description... lack of detail is not a crime.


have i suggested that it is a crime?


> By all means continue to preach over-the-top

> PCness


what's over the top? i said that people are more likely to be discriminated against for being black than for being tall or blond - i pointed out why i think people would not respond in the example that you yourself set out - sorry if that offends you (well not really sorry). you think that that's OTT?


if it makes you feel better about yourself.

> I should have known better than to get involved...

halicon Wrote:

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

> BOB clearly you are single, or should be, chivalry is dead!!


I'm afraid not, halicon. Quite frankly I've been beating girls off with a stick (not literally) until Mrs Right (not her real name) pinned me down.


I assume they like me for my ability to treat them as equals, rather than any skills I might have in the laying-coats-over-puddles department.

Nothing to do with coat over puddles you T**T!


More to do with being concerned for Mrs Rights safety if she was walking home at 6pm in the evening and a stranger ran at her! Although maybe she is used to that sort of bullish behaviour being with you and should beat you with a very big stick!


And as for treating us as equals I dont think this guy would have followed or run at any of you male, insensitive, gits!


Be aware that the person it happened to reads these and how awful she must feel, when all she wanted was to prevent the fear being repeated on any one else!

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

    • OOOOooooOOOooohhhHHHHHH 👜 👜 👜 
    • That's actually why the Sherlock Holmes stories were so popular. There was so little crime people found it exciting to imagine robberies and murders happening in London.
    • Yes, because of course there were no violent robberies in the olden days. Pretty much no crime happened at all I believe through the entire Victorian era.
    • Hi all, Im a Southwark council leaseholder and live downstairs in a ground floor flat, there is one flat above me, it's a house with individual front doors leading from the street into the shared pathway. My neighbour told me he has had a ring doorbell installed, no discussion as to how I would feel being on camera everytime I go in and out or in my front garden. I was told it's only for deliveries and doesn't record and only activates when pressed, however I don't know this and I feel really uncomfortable everytime I'm out in garden or on doorstep talking to people. Everytime I walk in/out, it lights up and in the eve it has a  infra red  light. Now I've read up that as he said its only for deliveries, he could set it so it only activates when pressed, however it activates with its motion sensor. Had he said to me about getting it installed, I could have had the opportunity to ask about it recording etc but nothing except it's being installed and when I arrived home it was there. I don't like being horrible to people however I feel I have not been considered in his decision and I feel very uncomfortable as, some times I have to stand on doorstep to get signal for my mobile and I really don't like the idea of being watched and listened to. Has anyone got any advice as I'm beginning to get angry as I've asked about it once and was told it only activates when pressed. I believe this is not true. I know southwark council say you need to ask permission to make sure the neighbours are OK with it, I don't really want to go down that road but I don't know how to approach the subject again. They also put a shed approx 3 foot from my back room window, these places are built so my window faces their rear garden and there upstairs window  faces mine. They said it's there temporarily, that was over a year ago and it does affect the light, plus I'm hoping to sell up soon and the view from window is mainly a dark brown shed. When I've mentioned this, I was told they have no where else to put it, whereas originally they said its only temporary, Also the floorboards above are bare and I get woke early morning and at night, the thudding is so bad my light shakes and window rattles, so I mentioned this and asked if they have rugs, I was told when they get the boards re sanded they will get rugs, I should have asked if they could get rugs and just take them up when boards being done, which I would have done had it been me living above someone, their attitude was I can just put up with it until they are ready. so they had the floor boards done, and the workmen was hammering screws, yes screws, in the floorboards, I spoke to workmen to ask how much longer and they said yes, are using screws to make less noise! I could hear the cordless screwdriver, not an issue but for every screw there were at least 8 whacks, the owners had gone out to avoid the noise  so I  spoke to workmen as the noise was unbearable, the sanding, not an issue at all, people need to get things done to their home and I'm fine that on occasions there will be temporary noise. now I have a nice crack on my bedroom ceiling, I mentioned this to owner but no response, he said there were alot of loose floorboards and it will be much better now, not so noisy, as though I don't know the difference between squeaking floor boards and thudding, and nothing was mentioned re the crack or that they now have rugs, which if it were me, I'd be trying to resolve the issue so we can get on with feeling happy in our homes. so I'm feeling it's a total lack of consideration. these places are old and Edwardian and I've lived here over 40 years, had 4 different neighbours and it's only now the noise of thudding is really bad and the people before had floorboards but nothing like this. As you can probably tell I'm really wound up and I don't want to end up exploding at them, I've always got on with neighbours and always said if there's a problem with my dog, pls let me know, always tell me, however I feel it's got to the point where I say something and I'm fobbed off. I know I should tell them but I'm angry, perhaps I should write them a letter. Any suggestions greatly appreciated and thank you for reading my rant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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