next labour leader

Ubik said:
It's segregation and it's patronising. As my mum remarked this morning, why not bring back chaperones too and make it official. And it's primarily women that I've seen taking the piss out of it.
Click to expand...

No-one's forcing women to use the carriages so how is it patronising? It's just providing the substantial number of women who've experienced sexual harassment or assault with the option of a safe space on public transport. Personally I've not seen a single women in my group of friends complain about the idea, just men on the Internet moaning about being treated unfairly. In my social circle all I've seen is overwhelming praise that someone has raised the issue and has said they'd consult women about it.

edit - would you also criticise women's shelters for being patronising and segregationist? No, because providing safe spaces for people is a logical reaction to ludicrous levels of gendered violence and crime in our society
 
Ubik said:
I'm really hoping the headline is just taking something out of context here, otherwise good grief.

CNSMpdgWEAA3aeD.jpg
Click to expand...

It's an Apartheid freight.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
No-one's forcing women to use the carriages so how is it patronising? It's just providing the substantial number of women who've experienced sexual harassment or assault with the option of a safe space on public transport. Personally I've not seen a single women in my group of friends complain about the idea, just men on the Internet moaning about being treated unfairly. In my social circle all I've seen is overwhelming praise that someone has raised the issue and has said they'd consult women about it.

edit - would you also criticise women's shelters for being patronising and segregationist? No, because providing safe spaces for people is a logical reaction to ludicrous levels of gendered violence and crime in our society
Click to expand...

The End Violence Against Women Coalition have been pretty down on it tbf.




Edit: wow they're big tweets, not sure how to cut out the image, sorry.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
No-one's forcing women to use the carriages so how is it patronising? It's just providing the substantial number of women who've experienced sexual harassment or assault with the option of a safe space on public transport. Personally I've not seen a single women in my group of friends complain about the idea, just men on the Internet moaning about being treated unfairly. In my social circle all I've seen is overwhelming praise that someone has raised the issue and has said they'd consult women about it.

edit - would you also criticise women's shelters for being patronising and segregationist? No, because providing safe spaces for people is a logical reaction to ludicrous levels of gendered violence and crime in our society
Click to expand...

It's not like he's saying its the right solution, just a potential solution which women themselves will be involved in discussing. Not a big deal that people are making out.
 
bishblaize said:
The End Violence Against Women Coalition have been pretty down on it tbf.

Click to expand...


That's shitty, victim-blaming logic. By the same logic you could say that women leaving the house is an invitation for them to be sexually harassed because it brings them into contact with men. Organisations aiming to end violence against women should be critical of the fecking sociopathic men who think women being in their proximity is an invitation to sexual harassment, not the people who are raising the issue for discussion and offering a real life solution.

Raees said:
It's not like he's saying its the right solution, just a potential solution which women themselves will be involved in discussing. Not a big deal that people are making out.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. I personally think it's a good idea, but all he's doing is saying it's a debate worth having.
 
Segregation is no solution.

The more we segregate, the more credence we give to the idea that that people should be treated differently. We already have women only gyms (which are wrong), so once we expand that to include trains and feck knows what else, we end up with a society where girls grow up feeling more insecure around men than they already do.

Anybody who thinks this is a good idea needs to ask themselves which societies have the biggest problems with violent attitudes towards women - is it the ones where men and women have for decades been able to mix absolutely freely...or is it the ones where segregation is the norm?
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, according to Wikipedia the countries currently offering women-only carriages on some rail/subway services are Japan, India, Egypt, Iran, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates.
 
Fearless said:
It's an Apartheid freight.
Click to expand...
That's it. Given the number of racist incidents on public transport in recent times, you do wonder what his 'solution' to tackle that will be.
 
Women-only carriages would be fair if males in fear of sexual assault were allowed in the safe carriage as well.
https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault
Surveys generally show though, that it's the elderly who are often so afraid of crime that they simply don't go out after dark, they are trapped in their own houses, so maybe the over 50s should be let in.
Meanwhile the A&Es of London are full every night of boys and young men who have been punched and kicked into them, so it's clear that under-30 males have the most urgent need of somewhere safe to travel.
Or maybe we should stop categorising people and get on with trying to make travel safer for everybody?
 
712 said:
Women-only carriages would be fair if males in fear of sexual assault were allowed in the safe carriage as well.
https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault
Surveys generally show though, that it's the elderly who are often so afraid of crime that they simply don't go out after dark, they are trapped in their own houses, so maybe the over 50s should be let in.
Meanwhile the A&Es of London are full every night of boys and young men who have been punched and kicked into them, so it's clear that under-30 males have the most urgent need of somewhere safe to travel.
Or maybe we should stop categorising people and get on with trying to make travel safer for everybody?
Click to expand...

I see your point and agree with it, but the difference is in the ease of delivery. Unsafe public transport has obvious solutions - increase police numbers, increase surveillance, train police and security staff in what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, actually ban or fine those who engage in such behaviour. Unfortunately those solutions would be extremely costly and come with their own raft of issues.

Firstly the police don't exist in a vacuum, many of the attitudes which lead men to assault or harass women are also prevalent in the police, which is why report rate for such crimes are so low and why so few reports actually get acted on. In order to be effective, police on public transport would need to be deployed in numbers high enough to be able to deal with groups of rowdy men and have the will to nip intimidating behaviour in the bud which some would dismiss as 'harmless banter'. And even then you aren't protecting women who are wary of the presence of men full stop because of previous experience.

And then you have another problem which is that when you've identified troublemakers, transport providers actually have to have the will to punish them. Unfortunately because of certain attitudes in society, the very same people who will use the train without incident to get to work can, with a few drinks in them, commit an act of harassment or assault which would warrant a ban. I'd personally have no problem fining or banning depending on the severity of the crime and let them deal with it, but I doubt transport providers will be so willing to risk losing a decent proportion of their custom.

This is all to say that, clearly women-only carriages don't solve the underlying problems of misogyny or the wider problem of crime on public transport, but it's a cheap and easy way to protect a section of vulnerable people until we can actually get our act together as a society. Unlike most people who are victims of crime on a night-out, women are targeted by men simply because they're women, so making them feel safe is often simply providing an area where there's no-one to target them. Tackling other forms of crime is no less important, but because the factors involved with violence between under-30s men are far more diverse there's no such 'easy fix' that will protect people in the short-term.
 
Here's a thought. Will Corbyn continue to rebel against his party, even though he's the leader? Suppose, for example that the Shadow Cabinet & NPF overwhelmingly agree to support a Trident renewal vote in the house. The whole shadow cabinet follow the whip.

Would he vote against the whip, despite being leader?
 
Genuinely can't believe people are defending it.
 
To me, it's the same as offering women-only taxis driven by women. You feel safer, even someone of my age. I don't think men who have never experienced the phenomenon of not actually being able to walk out anywhere on your own at night can understand this, and I'm not being patronising here. After dark, the world outside is not somewhere you go on your own as a lone woman (which is frankly ridiculous, but you have to be a pragmatist).

Even now, when I see a young woman walking on her own at night I always look twice at her. My immediate thought is for her safety. Women-only carriages on trains is a downstream solution, but it's some kind of solution.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
I see your point and agree with it, but the difference is in the ease of delivery. Unsafe public transport has obvious solutions - increase police numbers, increase surveillance, train police and security staff in what constitutes unacceptable behaviour, actually ban or fine those who engage in such behaviour. Unfortunately those solutions would be extremely costly and come with their own raft of issues.

Firstly the police don't exist in a vacuum, many of the attitudes which lead men to assault or harass women are also prevalent in the police, which is why report rate for such crimes are so low and why so few reports actually get acted on. In order to be effective, police on public transport would need to be deployed in numbers high enough to be able to deal with groups of rowdy men and have the will to nip intimidating behaviour in the bud which some would dismiss as 'harmless banter'. And even then you aren't protecting women who are wary of the presence of men full stop because of previous experience.

And then you have another problem which is that when you've identified troublemakers, transport providers actually have to have the will to punish them. Unfortunately because of certain attitudes in society, the very same people who will use the train without incident to get to work can, with a few drinks in them, commit an act of harassment or assault which would warrant a ban. I'd personally have no problem fining or banning depending on the severity of the crime and let them deal with it, but I doubt transport providers will be so willing to risk losing a decent proportion of their custom.

This is all to say that, clearly women-only carriages don't solve the underlying problems of misogyny or the wider problem of crime on public transport, but it's a cheap and easy way to protect a section of vulnerable people until we can actually get our act together as a society. Unlike most people who are victims of crime on a night-out, women are targeted by men simply because they're women, so making them feel safe is often simply providing an area where there's no-one to target them. Tackling other forms of crime is no less important, but because the factors involved with violence between under-30s men are far more diverse there's no such 'easy fix' that will protect people in the short-term.
Click to expand...

I can understand the logic there, and as others have said, let's take it as read that we all want better safety for women. What can't be got around though is that the proposal is discriminatory, and it is sexist. You're entitled to consider that this is justifiable in the interests of those women that want it, but personally I don't.
 
Penna said:
To me, it's the same as offering women-only taxis driven by women. You feel safer, even someone of my age. I don't think men who have never experienced the phenomenon of not actually being able to walk out anywhere on your own at night can understand this, and I'm not being patronising here. After dark, the world outside is not somewhere you go on your own as a lone woman (which is frankly ridiculous, but you have to be a pragmatist).

Even now, when I see a young woman walking on her own at night I always look twice at her. My immediate thought is for her safety. Women-only carriages on trains is a downstream solution, but it's some kind of solution.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know a bunch of women who have to spend loads to get a taxi because their alternative route home (walking, or getting the bus) carries a threat of harassment or assault. I also know a bunch of women who have gotten a taxi in which the (male) taxi driver has made a 'joke' about raping them so they've felt safer getting out and walking the rest of the way. A lot of people like to dismiss these experiences as an insignificant anomaly but most women I know face them every time they're out at night whether it's for work or for a night-out. I don't think it's really for people who aren't aware of these issues to shoot down ideas like this.

edit -

I can understand the logic there, and as others have said, let's take it as read that we all want better safety for women. What can't be got around though is that the proposal is discriminatory, and it is sexist. You're entitled to consider that this is justifiable in the interests of those women that want it, but personally I don't.
Click to expand...

It's not really discriminatory or sexist, because what are men losing, aside from the ability to harass, assault or otherwise creep out whoever they like? That's not a human right that's being violated.
 
Last edited:
jeff_goldblum said:
Yeah I know a bunch of women who have to spend loads to get a taxi because their alternative route home (walking, or getting the bus) carries a threat of harassment or assault. I also know a bunch of women who have gotten a taxi in which the (male) taxi driver has made a 'joke' about raping them so they've felt safer getting out and walking the rest of the way. A lot of people like to dismiss these experiences as an insignificant anomaly but most women I know face them every time they're out at night whether it's for work or for a night-out. I don't think it's really for those people to shoot down ideas like this.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it does not exist - but it honestly happens 100% of the time to over 50% of the women you know on their way back from work?

I personally find that rather hard to believe.
 
Raees said:
It's not like he's saying its the right solution, just a potential solution which women themselves will be involved in discussing. Not a big deal that people are making out.
Click to expand...
jeff_goldblum said:
Yeah exactly. I personally think it's a good idea, but all he's doing is saying it's a debate worth having.
Click to expand...

So is it more of a gimmick then?

How does he propose enforcing these gender divisions when boarding? If he's going to dedicate police or security to the task, then why not have them patrol the trains themselves (this already happens to a limited degree and should be expanded)?

Moreover, once you get to the last three or four stops on the line it is not uncommon to find yourself alone or sharing the space with but one other person, what is to prevent someone for criminal intent from accessing this now isolate carriage? Which is to say nothing of those women who elect to travel in other parts of the train.

We could of course introduce automated trains, and swap the drivers for guards, but the unions would kick up an almighty fuss i imagine.
 
Last edited:
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
So is it more of a gimmick then?

How does he propose enforcing these gender divisions when boarding? If he's going to dedicate police or security to the task, then why not have them patrol the trains themselves (this already happens to a limited degree and should be expanded)?
.
Click to expand...
What about transgendered... where do they go? seperate carriage (or do they have to stand in the space between carriages (one end women to men and one men to women)... and what about hermaphrodites???? Its all too confusing lets just have groping and non groping carriages.
 
sun_tzu said:
I'm not saying that it does not exist - but it honestly happens 100% of the time to over 50% of the women you know on their way back from work?

I personally find that rather hard to believe.
Click to expand...

No, sorry if I've been unclear. I meant they have to face the fear of those things happening to them 100% of the time. I can't feed you exact statistics, but if you're a women walking home through an area with bars at night you'd be extremely lucky not to get hassle off at least one man/group of men. On multiple occasions I've seen groups of men literally spread out across a path to intimidate a woman walking towards them alone 'for a laugh' and on multiple occasions I've seen groups of men following lone women down the street whilst sexually harassing them. It doesn't just exist, it's extremely prevalent, perhaps not in terms of the number of men who are engaging in that behaviour but certainly in the number of women who experience it and the frequency with which they do so. It doesn't really matter if you personally find the prevalence of the behaviour hard to believe, it's not you who has to experience it.

Nick 0208 Ldn said:
So is it more of a gimmick then?

How does he propose enforcing these gender divisions when boarding? If he's going to dedicate police or security to the task, then why not have them patrol the trains themselves (this already happens to a limited degree and should be expanded)?

Moreover, once you get to the last three or four stops on the line it is not uncommon to find yourself alone or sharing the space with but one other person, what is to prevent someone for criminal intent from accessing this now isolate carriage? Which is to say nothing of those women who elect to travel in other parts of the train.

We could of course introduce automated trains, and swap the drivers for guards, but the unions would kick up an almighty fuss i should imagine.
Click to expand...

No it's not a gimmick, it's having an important conversation about the rising levels of sexual harassment and assault in our society and methods to prevent them, letting the people affected take the lead in steering the debate.

On your second point, I'd suggest employing a guard in each women's only carriage (presumably one-a-train). But yes I agree there should also be more robust supervision of the whole train as well, I suggest that would be the responsibility of the police.
 
sun_tzu said:
What about transgendered... where do they go? seperate carriage (or do they have to stand in the space between carriages (one end women to men and one men to women)... and what about hermaphrodites???? Its all too confusing lets just have groping and non groping carriages.
Click to expand...

I know you're trying to make a mockery of the difficulties of policing the carriages, but you raise probably the first valid anti-women's carriages point I've seen. Trans people are subject to higher levels of both sexual and non-sexual violence than any other section of our society. The only real issue I can see with the concept of women-only carriages is that trans folks who also suffer harassment and abuse at the hands of men and have good reason to seek a safe space might not feel welcome in them, or in severe cases might be barred from them by intolerant passengers or staff. Sadly I think that's a problem that'll only truly to solved when societal attitudes modernise a little and we stop defining people by what genitalia they were born with.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
No it's not a gimmick, it's having an important conversation about the rising levels of sexual harassment and assault in our society and methods to prevent them, letting the people affected take the lead in steering the debate.

On your second point, I'd suggest employing a guard in each women's only carriage (presumably one-a-train). But yes I agree there should also be more robust supervision of the whole train as well, I suggest that would be the responsibility of the police.
Click to expand...

I have no objection at all to this, on the contrary in fact, however i question whether Corbyn can produce more than talk. This isn't a new suggestion in the least, where is his well-thought-out policy on the matter?

Has he actually said that he would guarantee at least two members of security or police per train? I fear that it is a spot of political kite-flying (with a dash of isn't Jeremy a caring sort), or will end up being one carriage at the end of a train with barely any additional personnel assigned.
 
soap said:
Is harassment on trains that rife? Genuine question, I don't know.
Click to expand...

1,399 reported incidents of sexual assault in 2014-5 which is up 25% on the previous year. Surveys suggest that 90% of such incidents go unrecorded so we're probably talking ~14,000 incidents of sexual assault on trains or platforms in a year. There isn't really figures for lower-level harassment (because it's so common).
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I have no objection at all to this, on the contrary in fact, however i question whether Corbyn can produce more than talk. This isn't a new suggestion in the least, where is his well-thought-out policy on the matter?

Has he actually said that he would guarantee at least two members of security or police per train? I fear that it is a spot of political kite-flying (with a dash of isn't Jeremy a caring sort), or will end up being one carriage at the end of a train with barely any additional personnel assigned.
Click to expand...

Well give it time, he only just mentioned it today. He'll consult the relevant people and then come up with a policy, that's the done thing. The suggestions I made in my previous posts were my own, sorry if that wasn't clear.

edit - here's what he said

CNVc666WwAAUCq3.png:large
 
jeff_goldblum said:
1,399 reported incidents of sexual assault in 2014-5 which is up 25% on the previous year. Surveys suggest that 90% of such incidents go unrecorded so we're probably talking ~14,000 incidents of sexual assault on trains or platforms in a year. There isn't really figures for lower-level harassment (because it's so common).
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I get that harassment is a big problem in general and not one I'll ever really be able to comprehend, I'm just curious as to whether it's particularly bad on trains. I suppose it's not that it's more frequent, its that it's harder to ignore?
 
soap said:
Hmmm. I get that harassment is a big problem in general and not one I'll ever really be able to comprehend, I'm just curious as to whether it's particularly bad on trains. I suppose it's not that it's more frequent, its that it's harder to ignore?
Click to expand...

Those statistics are from the British Transport Police so they largely pertain to the trains and the tubes. I guess that incidence rates on trains will vary wildly depending on route and time of day etc. (a train carrying drunk folks home on a night out or a stag do is probably more likely to see more incidents per capita than a morning commute for example), I'm not sure how either situation compares to rates in general.
 
Really is a nothing story .Blown up to make Corbyn look like a looney left.
 
Thought this was interesting.

The hysteria around Corbyn's women-only carriages shows why we have such boring politicians (politics.co.uk)

Jeremy Corbyn's greatest advantage is his ability to speak clearly and confidently, without mincing his words or engaging in the cautious, passive, managerial language which so alienates voters. And it's also the quality which is going to get him in the most trouble, as today's comments on women-only train carriages shows.
Click to expand...

Full article here.

I also read a similar opinion on a Lib Dem blog (which I can't find now, sorry). He made the point that there's a reason that politicians all look and sound the same. Its because they've been forced to become that way by the pressure of exposure. Any sharp edges end up being attack vectors for their opponents.

Obviously Corbyn just put this idea out into the public domain to see the response. However its the nature of the beast that people react to it, and if it presses their button, they do so vehemently. Be interesting to see if he continues.
 
Is it true that Labour aren't giving money back to people who joined the party, but have since been told they're not allowed to vote?
 
How long do you have to stay a member for if you want your vote to count? I'm getting seriously pissed off at the mental amount of texts and phone calls I'm getting, really brings home the idea of how clueless they are, that they think this irritating spam will somehow bring you round to one of them.
 
Cheesy said:
Is it true that Labour aren't giving money back to people who joined the party, but have since been told they're not allowed to vote?
Click to expand...
Yes it is.

It's also come out that Labour HQ are potentially going to purge 100,000 votes. No-one can be under any illusions that the vast majority of those will be genuine Labour people. And the vast majority of those purged will be voting for one candidate.

What on earth are they thinking? Do they think it's going to look acceptable disenfranchising 1/6th of the electorate, if the overwhelming favourite who the New Labour hierarchy have made clear they don't want to win, doesn't win?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...hurch-and-more-a-secret-society-10471163.html
http://www.cityam.com/223026/labour...**-harman-concedes-many-100000-voters-couldbe
 
Silva said:
If Corbyn doesn't win, and they've barred that many people, they can really kiss any ideas of power goodbye.
Click to expand...

Yeah, anything but a Corbyn win and the definition of the phrase 'final nail in the coffin' will be changed to be about the Labour party, and to be honest I will be quite happy to watch it die. Even if he becomes leader, if they turn it into a circus and manage to undermine him at all (God knows they will try their hardest) they can enjoy the same fate. I'm optimistic that he will be popular enough to shut them down though.
 
Crono said:
Yes it is.

It's also come out that Labour HQ are potentially going to purge 100,000 votes. No-one can be under any illusions that the vast majority of those will be genuine Labour people. And the vast majority of those purged will be voting for one candidate.

What on earth are they thinking? Do they think it's going to look acceptable disenfranchising 1/6th of the electorate, if the overwhelming favourite who the New Labour hierarchy have made clear they don't want to win, doesn't win?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...hurch-and-more-a-secret-society-10471163.html
http://www.cityam.com/223026/labour...**-harman-concedes-many-100000-voters-couldbe
Click to expand...

To be fair to ******* Harman, there is some absolutely atrocious journalism going on there (surprise surprise)

She was asked about the final size of the electorate and said it would be more than 500,000 and less than 600,000. Given that the current total stands at 553,954 that's at most 50,000 purged but it will probably be a lot less.

I would however like to congratulate a paper aimed at the financial services industry for being so bad with figures.
 
They should do "harasser only" train carriages where all the twats can harass each other and leave normal people alone.
 
Shamwow said:
They should do "harasser only" train carriages where all the twats can harass each other and leave normal people alone.
Click to expand...

I had this idea a few years ago, I was going to call it the 'Banter Carriage' in the hopes that it would entice the awful bastards to concentrate away from people who just want a nice train journey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.