The vast majority of people in this 'purge' were affiliates whose fees had lapsed. If people haven't paid their fees, are members of other parties or were dumb enough to say something against the party on social media at the election, they shouldn't be voting in the leadership election. Not exactly controversial.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Nah, that's a bollocks argument. Otherwise you'd wind up with only a handful of people too stupid to question anything having a vote. We'd wind up being governed by actual zombies.
It's an absolute joke.
Determining that certain people aren't worthy of voting in their election, yet still taking their money anyway. What an utter embarrassment.
Banning people from voting on this basis is ridiculously shaky, though. I'd question the sanity of anyone who hasn't criticised the Labour party at some point in the last few years. What if there are dedicated campaigners for Labour out there who have been heavily critical of certain aspects of the party? Should they be excluded for not blindly following their party on every single issue?
That wasn't supposed to be taken literally, I meant people going on twitter "don't vote for Labour, they're tories, vote for the SWP" or whatever. If you say something like that in a public forum then try and get back into the party to vote for a leader, sorry, I have no sympathy.
And here's a level-headed and short piece in the New Statesman explaining why Corbynistas really need not panic or even become engulfed in indignant rage - http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...runken-electorate-mean-jeremy-corbyns-chances
Even shorter - the huge majority are blocked from voting for legit reasons, and Corbyn's still likely going to win by more than the number's leaving anyway.
Even shorter - the huge majority are blocked from voting for legit reasons, and Corbyn's still likely going to win by more than the number's leaving anyway.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34061094
So a study last year concluded women only carriages would be a retrograde step seen as insulting
So a study last year concluded women only carriages would be a retrograde step seen as insulting
It's perfectly legitimate to not vote for Labour and leave the party because you don't like the direction it's taken, and then decide to join again to vote for a candidate who is promising what you want. It's the only way to change things, because without a leader like Corbyn, Labour will simply be more of the same.
I didn't realise that people weren't allowed to change their minds in a democracy.
Corbyn presents the arguments for female-only carriages.
HACKETT: WOMAN FILMED TRAIN PASSENGER MASTURBATING
A woman filmed a man pleasuring himself through his tracksuit bottoms as he watched her on a train, a court heard today (Weds).
Kearin Hackett, 20, touched himself as he took a Southern Railway train from London Victoria to Sutton, Westminster Magistrates Court heard.
The victim at first thought Hackett was trying to scratch as he tugged at his jogging bottoms, but then realised what he was doing.
He even followed the woman to a new different seat when she tried to get away from him, magistrates were told.
Hackett was detained when the witness complained to staff at Sutton station and showed them footage she had secretly taken of him on her mobile phone.
Today (Weds) he had no choice but to admit outraging public decency on 15 July this year.
Stella Waata, prosecuting said: ‘On 15 June at about 3.30 in the afternoon the victim boarded a train heading towards Sutton railway station.
‘She sat in the rear of the train carriage facing in the direction of travel with the carriage window to the left with three seats facing her.
‘Mr Hackett boarded the train, passed a number of empty seats and eventually sat down opposite her with the carriage window to the right.
‘He could have sat in a number of different seats that would have allowed him more comfort and leg room.’
She continued: ‘He was pulling at his jogging bottoms, the victim thought he was hot or sweaty or that he had an itch, but noticed he had an erection under his jogging bottoms and he was twitching his erect penis.
‘He then reached for his erect penis was his hand, he had his legs open and was clearly masturbating through his clothes.’
‘She was very anxious and disgusted.’
The victim remained frozen in her seat and even texted a friend asking her what she should do.
She took a short clip of Hackett touching himself on her mobile phone before getting up and changing seats.
Hackett followed her, sitting just behind, and carried on staring at her between the gaps in the seats.
Ms Waata said: ‘When she arrived at Sutton Station she told staff and he was subsequently detained.
‘He answered “no comment” to all questions put to him in interview except to say that he had no mental health conditions.’
Adjourning sentencing until 16 September, Chairman of the Bench Edward Lord said: ‘This case requires the probation service to prepare a report about you and about this offence.
‘It also looks at your previous offending behaviour and will recommend potential sentences for us to consider.’
He added: ‘If you fail to attend on that date that’s a criminal offence for which you could be fined, sent to prison or both.’
Hackett, or Norwich Road, Thornton Heath, Croydon, was granted bail on the condition he doesn’t use any Southern Railway services.
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=41815
HACKETT: WOMAN FILMED TRAIN PASSENGER MASTURBATING
A woman filmed a man pleasuring himself through his tracksuit bottoms as he watched her on a train, a court heard today (Weds).
Kearin Hackett, 20, touched himself as he took a Southern Railway train from London Victoria to Sutton, Westminster Magistrates Court heard.
The victim at first thought Hackett was trying to scratch as he tugged at his jogging bottoms, but then realised what he was doing.
He even followed the woman to a new different seat when she tried to get away from him, magistrates were told.
Hackett was detained when the witness complained to staff at Sutton station and showed them footage she had secretly taken of him on her mobile phone.
Today (Weds) he had no choice but to admit outraging public decency on 15 July this year.
Stella Waata, prosecuting said: ‘On 15 June at about 3.30 in the afternoon the victim boarded a train heading towards Sutton railway station.
‘She sat in the rear of the train carriage facing in the direction of travel with the carriage window to the left with three seats facing her.
‘Mr Hackett boarded the train, passed a number of empty seats and eventually sat down opposite her with the carriage window to the right.
‘He could have sat in a number of different seats that would have allowed him more comfort and leg room.’
She continued: ‘He was pulling at his jogging bottoms, the victim thought he was hot or sweaty or that he had an itch, but noticed he had an erection under his jogging bottoms and he was twitching his erect penis.
‘He then reached for his erect penis was his hand, he had his legs open and was clearly masturbating through his clothes.’
‘She was very anxious and disgusted.’
The victim remained frozen in her seat and even texted a friend asking her what she should do.
She took a short clip of Hackett touching himself on her mobile phone before getting up and changing seats.
Hackett followed her, sitting just behind, and carried on staring at her between the gaps in the seats.
Ms Waata said: ‘When she arrived at Sutton Station she told staff and he was subsequently detained.
‘He answered “no comment” to all questions put to him in interview except to say that he had no mental health conditions.’
Adjourning sentencing until 16 September, Chairman of the Bench Edward Lord said: ‘This case requires the probation service to prepare a report about you and about this offence.
‘It also looks at your previous offending behaviour and will recommend potential sentences for us to consider.’
He added: ‘If you fail to attend on that date that’s a criminal offence for which you could be fined, sent to prison or both.’
Hackett, or Norwich Road, Thornton Heath, Croydon, was granted bail on the condition he doesn’t use any Southern Railway services.
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/?news_id=41815
That's a very clickbait-y summary. The line about it being a retrograde step which could be seen as insulting isn't based on any survey or academic work, the citation links to an opinion piece published in The Independent in 2014 (out of interest, the author's recent articles include 'Pooh Sticks: Scientists finally find a recipe for success, and it's about the stick' and 'How Benjy the Gay Bull found acceptance after being saved from slaughter'). On the other hand, an actual survey conducted by actual academics mentioned in that report cites that 45% of women in London would feel safer in women-only carriages and that 66% of women questioned in Mexico City (where women's only carriages have been implemented) say that they feel safer.
The argument the report presents against women-only public transport makes the vague allusion to 'some women' who don't agree with the idea, but basically boils down to 'if you give women the opportunity to sit in their own carriage men will just be more awful towards women who choose to stay in the mixed carriages', 'men don't like the idea' and 'train operators are scared to annoy men'.
The report has a couple of valid critiques, but they're ones which have already been addressed in this thread. Women's only carriages aren't going to change men's attitudes in the long-term and stop them wanting to harass and assault, that's a given. What they do is provide a safe space so women can feel safer until we as a society tackle the underlying issue of sexism. Similarly, it's clear that women's only carriages are not a 'fix-all' solution to the problem of harassment and assault on public transport. Better policing and robust punishment of criminals is also absolutely vital, but in the here and now, for people who fear harassment and assault as part of their weekly routine a partial fix is better than no fix at all.
I agree with Corbyn re women only carriages, and most of jeff's posts on the matter.
what planet are you on???... its in the report by middlesex uni...
Report in Full
http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/15219/1/Gekoski, Gray, Horvath, Edwards, Emirali & Adler 2015.pdf
and how is the independent opinion piece in 2014 is supposed to explain a report published in 2015
anyway from said report...direct quote page 58
they extensively detail their sources and methodology of selection
also page 46 section 7.1 (summary of women only carriages)
Last edited:
@sun_tzu - Read my post again, I'm not saying the report itself isn't an academic piece. I'm saying that the conclusions they've reached aren't based on any academic work or survey information.
Take a look at the references. The first thing you'll notice is that the sole piece of evidence they've cited which supports the conclusions you've bolded is that one opinion piece in the Independent.
Being fair, they also cite some statistical data, the fact that only 2% of women surveyed in Pune, India support women-only buses, but that data pertains to women-only buses, not train carriages. A couple of minutes of research reveals that the figure in question is plucked from a larger study which actually refutes the argument they're trying to make. The study mentions that women-only train carriages (y'know, the thing we're actually talking about) were 'very popular' amongst women in Pune, and that in Dhaka 50% of women were in favour of women-only busses.
A cursory read through the rest of their sources shows how they've omitted certain evidence which further undermines their case. They report that 66% of women in Mexico City say that women-only travel was safer. They omit the fact that the number of women who support same-sex rail carriages is 83%, with 17% of those saying that they're a good idea but they're not well enough policed.
To put it very plainly, it's shoddy academia which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Once you actually pick through the bias you quickly find that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence suggests that the idea women-only carriages is very well-supported and that in practice they are both popular amongst women and effective at significantly reducing levels of men on woman crime.
The authors have chosen to ignore all the solid evidence in favour of the opinion of one women in the Independent, and papers like the Telegraph are, either disingenuously or naively, peddling it as truth in their crusade against Corbyn.
Take a look at the references. The first thing you'll notice is that the sole piece of evidence they've cited which supports the conclusions you've bolded is that one opinion piece in the Independent.
Being fair, they also cite some statistical data, the fact that only 2% of women surveyed in Pune, India support women-only buses, but that data pertains to women-only buses, not train carriages. A couple of minutes of research reveals that the figure in question is plucked from a larger study which actually refutes the argument they're trying to make. The study mentions that women-only train carriages (y'know, the thing we're actually talking about) were 'very popular' amongst women in Pune, and that in Dhaka 50% of women were in favour of women-only busses.
A cursory read through the rest of their sources shows how they've omitted certain evidence which further undermines their case. They report that 66% of women in Mexico City say that women-only travel was safer. They omit the fact that the number of women who support same-sex rail carriages is 83%, with 17% of those saying that they're a good idea but they're not well enough policed.
To put it very plainly, it's shoddy academia which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever. Once you actually pick through the bias you quickly find that the overwhelming bulk of the evidence suggests that the idea women-only carriages is very well-supported and that in practice they are both popular amongst women and effective at significantly reducing levels of men on woman crime.
The authors have chosen to ignore all the solid evidence in favour of the opinion of one women in the Independent, and papers like the Telegraph are, either disingenuously or naively, peddling it as truth in their crusade against Corbyn.
Last edited:
I suspect they are a little more qualified than you or I to be commissioned to write this report...
they do say that single sex carriages can reduce the risks however their main reason for concluding they are a bad idea is British society viewing them as such so you know how people view them in Mexico or india is perhaps not as relavent as:
8. Although women-only transport may be an effective means of reducing unwanted sexual behaviour on public transport in some countries, they are essentially ‘shortterm fixes’ and reinforce a messa (ge that women must be contained and segregated in order to protect them. They are therefore not recommended in countries such as Britain, where they would be a retrograde step.
unless you support changing society to denigrate the view of women sufficiently that this would no longer be a concern as it would fit the crusading comrade corbyn narative?
Fundamentally the department of transport and police commissioned an independent report into the issue in general and one of the options they looked at was this - they conclude it is a bad idea... If corbyn wants to dismiss that and pursue the idea then thats fine he is welcome to. But if thats the case but what evidence would that be based on? because if the police and department for transports report says its a bad idea I would hope he has something pretty weighty to back it up as a valid use of taxpayer money and civil service time as the report suggests several other ideas they seem to think would have a better effect.
@sun_tzu - you keep coming back to that summary, but where is your evidence? There is no evidence to suggest that we wouldn't see similar benefits in this country, the idea that we wouldn't seems to be based on some deluded and patronising assumption that British society is oh-so-progressive and that other nations just aren't as good as we are. The fact that we see ~14,000 sexual assaults on the trains and tubes alone a year in this country (stats from the British Transport police in a previous post of mine in this thread) should put the assumption that we're a beacon of gender equality to bed. On the other hand, off the top of my head I can point to the success of women-only bus schemes in reducing levels of sexual assault at universities as a example of women-only public transport making a real difference in this country.
With reference to the report we're discussing I'd suggest judging the work on its own merits rather than assuming it's all fine because it was written by academics. As an academic myself I can guarantee that as a group they're not above talking utter shit and putting evidence aside in order to further their normative agenda. As I've demonstrated, none of the 'evidence' in that report actually backs up their conclusions. The judgement that they, and you, have come to is your own personal opinion, not an evidence-based assessment of the feasibility of the policy.
Finally, as has been pointed out before. Corbyn hasn't said he wants to 'pursue' the idea as a sort of moral crusade, he's said he's going to ask women whether they think it would be a good idea and act accordingly. Presumably that would involve a survey to gather evidence, something which the writers of that report simply didn't bother to do.
With reference to the report we're discussing I'd suggest judging the work on its own merits rather than assuming it's all fine because it was written by academics. As an academic myself I can guarantee that as a group they're not above talking utter shit and putting evidence aside in order to further their normative agenda. As I've demonstrated, none of the 'evidence' in that report actually backs up their conclusions. The judgement that they, and you, have come to is your own personal opinion, not an evidence-based assessment of the feasibility of the policy.
Finally, as has been pointed out before. Corbyn hasn't said he wants to 'pursue' the idea as a sort of moral crusade, he's said he's going to ask women whether they think it would be a good idea and act accordingly. Presumably that would involve a survey to gather evidence, something which the writers of that report simply didn't bother to do.
now you see this report commissioned for the department of transport and the btp...
well it does include stats... actual stats from the btp... and they have no resemblance to yours
p16 if your actually interested...
but it shows 5899 crimes (including rape, assault, public indecency and exposure) between 2009 and 2015
88 rapes (2009-2015)
33 Assaults (penetrative) (2009-2015)
3302 Assaults (2009 - 2015) an average of 550 per year which is somewhat different to your 14,000! per year (about 25 times less to be pedantic... or another way is to say your figures are inflated by 2,500%)
so how your btp figures show 14000 in one year I dont know... but Im going to suggest a report for BTP using BTP figures is probably right so if you are basing your argument on figures so wildly inaccurate perhaps you should check out the report in full and see what they recommend and why?
Last edited:
The report I read said there have been 1399 reported cases in the last year, research shows that 90% of such incidents go unreported, suggesting an actual incidence level of around 14,000 cases. Any chance of a response to the rest of my post instead of attempts to derail the debate through nitpicking?
if you read the report I'll debate it with you... its pretty difficult when you dont
I've read the figures and the first thing I'll do is hold my hand up and say that the figure I cite pertains to sexual offences, not just assaults.
But frankly if you're unwilling to make the distinction between the number of incidents reported to the police and the number of actual occurrences you have no place discussing sexual crime statistics. It's a fact that 90% of sexual crime goes unreported regardless of its severity and so the 14,000 figure I stated is entirely fair based on the 1,399 figure given by the BTP for 2014-15. Using the figures you've used above its reasonable to assume 5,500 sexual assaults a year on average on our trains and tubes.
All this is secondary to the debate we were having anyway, which is that your supposition that Britain is so advanced that the same stuff that demonstrably works abroad couldn't work here is bogus. We have a very clear issue with sex crime and the threat of sex crime in this country which is having an inpact on the lives or women. The idea that societies where they've used women-only carriage policies to great effect and with great popularity are completely alien to our own is daft and lacks any basis in fact.
Interesting piece from YouGov profiling the people voting in the Labour leadership elections.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/
Needless to say supporters of every candidate are to the left of the general population as you'd expect. Nonetheless, graphs like the one below do worry me.
(Sorry it's so large)
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/
Needless to say supporters of every candidate are to the left of the general population as you'd expect. Nonetheless, graphs like the one below do worry me.
(Sorry it's so large)
One thing is for certain though from TFL's survey the trains should not be the focus of any of this...
P19
so surely it makes more sense by any measure to have women only buses - or sections on buses if that's the biggest problem (or does that get a little too close to having some bloke in a Rosa Parks style moment go listen love I'm going to sit down here because there are no other seats and I promise not to grope you if you don't grope me... ok
Its what people have been saying all along - if they want to win they need a kendal type centrist leader - otherwise they will be seen as so out of touch with reality that they are going to get mauled in the next general electionInteresting piece from YouGov profiling the people voting in the Labour leadership elections.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/27/you-may-say-im-dreamer-inside-mindset-jeremy-corby/
Needless to say supporters of every candidate are to the left of the general population as you'd expect. Nonetheless, graphs like the one below do worry me.
(Sorry it's so large)
I haven't been following the convo too closely, but you can't just use TFL as a sample as they only have London to go by. I'd wager there's much more incidents in the wider UK on the National Rail, rather than London buses.
Just the other day, one of my friends who I was on the phone to was going from Cardiff to Merthyr and all you could hear was some drunk guy harassing a woman in the background. Not physically/sexually, but continually trying to talk to her when she made it clear she wasn't interested.
london overground is fairly huge though its part of the network rail system but managed by tfl so they have quite a lot of experience
81 stations and 136 million people used the Overground in 2013/14 which is about the same as south east trains and more than first great western (97 million in 2013) for example so I wouldn't dismiss their take on it so quickly.
I'm not dismissing it entirely, but from the report you had earlier, the staff visibility is a lot more...visible in London as well. So, even though we do get incidents, I think Corbyn was talking about the regions as opposed to London (I think, I haven't read what he said properly if I'm honest), where this visibility might not be as prevalent. Personally, I think if it does stop women being harassed then I'm all for it. The counter arguments are that it is sexist (it's not), or it's a retrograde step for a civilised society is irrelevant as well. Well, a civilised society wouldn't have to deal with this type of issue in the first place.
That seems a fair point, although when it says 'most commonly' I think that needs clarifying. Does that mean 'most of the incidents take place on buses' or 'the highest occurrence rate of incidents per user is on buses'? If the former that's entirely unsurprising given that I imagine far more people use the buses to get home after a night out than use the tube or overground services.
I don't think anyone worth listening to would make any serious comparison between a women's section on a bus and bus segregation in America. Unfortunately given the opposition to the whole concept by men, the increased cost of the bus option would make it more difficult to justify. Short of supplying women-only buses I can't see a way to do it without employing security staff on every bus. I imagine though, that in places like London where the overground is so extensive, if the short-haul trains suddenly became a far safer and less intimidating prospect for women because of women-only carriages you'd probably see a lot of people using them who previously would have shelled out for taxis. In that sense the carriage option would be pretty cost-effective and save women a lot of money. A lost statistic in all this is the number of women who avoid public transport all together because they're afraid of attacking harassed or attacked.
This 100%.
Ladies! You won’t be leading the Labour party, so here’s a women-only train carriage
The Jeremy Corbyn camp has floated the idea of segregated transport. This would be a childish, posturing affront to decades of work to raise the status of women
Anne Perkins
Wednesday 26th August 2015
Women-only carriages! Now there’s a thought: the sort of thought a brainstorming session among a group of middle-aged men might come up with, possibly after a pint.
There are two explanations for today’s adventure in policymaking. One, the Corbyn camp has suddenly realised that if he’s going to be Labour leader, and if Tom Watson becomes deputy leader, as the bookies expect, it will be more than just the Tom and Jerry show: it will be a radical leadership whose public face is male. Clearly time for some eye-catching women’s policies. (Or should that be wimmin?)
More kindly, it could be dismissed as an ill-considered flash of inspiration typical of, say, a child that is suddenly the centre of attention in a room full of adults.
Sometimes, the whole Jeremy Corbyn movement feels a bit like that. Hardly surprising, when some of your audience treats you like the messiah, and kids are climbing into, rather than out of, halls to get to hear you speak, and it seems that you are on the brink of becoming leader of Her Majesty’s opposition. It must seem unnecessary to filter through your most cherished ideas and judiciously pick out only the ones that actually survive ooh, five minutes of discussion.
In fairness to the candidate, it is clear that there were doubters in the room when the idea first came up. His latest policy statement suggesting women-only carriages comes hedged with words about wanting to make public transport safer for everyone. And he is proposing consulting with women to see whether we, the great homogenous mass of XX-chromosomed humanity, have a view. He is not putting it at the top of his to-do list for the first 100 days.
Obviously, there are sex attacks on public transport – according to the latest figures from the British Transport Police, about 1,400 last year, which is obviously 1400 too many (particularly when this type of crime, like most sex attacks, is one of the great under-reported offences). There are also muggings, assaults, and low-level violence only involving men.
Ker-ping! The heart of the matter. Segregating the victims to keep them safe rather than dealing with the perpetrators so that women actually are safe feels like dungaree feminism. The real answer must be to work to make public space safe for everyone.
Being only a bit younger than Jezzer, I can remember when this was exactly the kind of inspirational policy that was the subject of much urgent discussion – in about, oh, 1975. That was when identifying ways in which women were discriminated against was still a much more absorbing way of engaging in politics than thinking of achievable ways of stopping it. It was also about 40 years ago.
But it is posturing: headline-making, late 20th-century Islington, an easy answer to a problem that is not easily solved. It is an affront to decades of serious work to raise the status of women, and to women’s sense of their self worth.
On the other hand, the women-only carriages idea has possibilities. They could have floor to ceiling mirrors with proper lighting, which would make putting on makeup on the tube so much easier. You might be able to trade items of clothing with fellow travellers who had also saved getting ready for work for the commute into the office. In fact once you start to think about it, the attractiveness of the idea grows and grows. Showers could be installed! There could be fresh flowers! Romantic novels! Massages...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/labour-women-only-train-carriages-jeremy-corbyn
I heard her on PW last week and thought Perkins made some good points as i recall.
The Jeremy Corbyn camp has floated the idea of segregated transport. This would be a childish, posturing affront to decades of work to raise the status of women
Anne Perkins
Wednesday 26th August 2015
Women-only carriages! Now there’s a thought: the sort of thought a brainstorming session among a group of middle-aged men might come up with, possibly after a pint.
There are two explanations for today’s adventure in policymaking. One, the Corbyn camp has suddenly realised that if he’s going to be Labour leader, and if Tom Watson becomes deputy leader, as the bookies expect, it will be more than just the Tom and Jerry show: it will be a radical leadership whose public face is male. Clearly time for some eye-catching women’s policies. (Or should that be wimmin?)
More kindly, it could be dismissed as an ill-considered flash of inspiration typical of, say, a child that is suddenly the centre of attention in a room full of adults.
Sometimes, the whole Jeremy Corbyn movement feels a bit like that. Hardly surprising, when some of your audience treats you like the messiah, and kids are climbing into, rather than out of, halls to get to hear you speak, and it seems that you are on the brink of becoming leader of Her Majesty’s opposition. It must seem unnecessary to filter through your most cherished ideas and judiciously pick out only the ones that actually survive ooh, five minutes of discussion.
In fairness to the candidate, it is clear that there were doubters in the room when the idea first came up. His latest policy statement suggesting women-only carriages comes hedged with words about wanting to make public transport safer for everyone. And he is proposing consulting with women to see whether we, the great homogenous mass of XX-chromosomed humanity, have a view. He is not putting it at the top of his to-do list for the first 100 days.
Obviously, there are sex attacks on public transport – according to the latest figures from the British Transport Police, about 1,400 last year, which is obviously 1400 too many (particularly when this type of crime, like most sex attacks, is one of the great under-reported offences). There are also muggings, assaults, and low-level violence only involving men.
Ker-ping! The heart of the matter. Segregating the victims to keep them safe rather than dealing with the perpetrators so that women actually are safe feels like dungaree feminism. The real answer must be to work to make public space safe for everyone.
Being only a bit younger than Jezzer, I can remember when this was exactly the kind of inspirational policy that was the subject of much urgent discussion – in about, oh, 1975. That was when identifying ways in which women were discriminated against was still a much more absorbing way of engaging in politics than thinking of achievable ways of stopping it. It was also about 40 years ago.
But it is posturing: headline-making, late 20th-century Islington, an easy answer to a problem that is not easily solved. It is an affront to decades of serious work to raise the status of women, and to women’s sense of their self worth.
On the other hand, the women-only carriages idea has possibilities. They could have floor to ceiling mirrors with proper lighting, which would make putting on makeup on the tube so much easier. You might be able to trade items of clothing with fellow travellers who had also saved getting ready for work for the commute into the office. In fact once you start to think about it, the attractiveness of the idea grows and grows. Showers could be installed! There could be fresh flowers! Romantic novels! Massages...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/labour-women-only-train-carriages-jeremy-corbyn
I heard her on PW last week and thought Perkins made some good points as i recall.
Last edited:
Women afraid to use trains? Is this a London thing? I have never heard it from any women that I know.
Floor to ceiling mirrors with proper lighting? They might as well put up a sign 'Must shag in here'.
What a shite article.
Perkins is dreadful and her agenda is, and has always been, painfully transparent when discussing Corbyn. She's been a prominent figure in the middle-class liberal wing of the media smear campaign. The first line is that speaks volumes for its credibility, I'm going to use her own technique to outline how I imagine she came up with it.
'Hmm, women-only carriages, seems like it actually would help protect women...how do I rub his name through the dirt with this? Well, the men will hate it because it's about protecting women so that's no problem, but how do I get women to hate him too? Maybe I could paint him as an overly-protective white knight caricature? Bah! The quote I want to smear him with literally contains a reference to the idea being suggested to him by women. I know! I'll just entirely ignore the context in which the suggestion was raised and concoct an entirely fictitious scenario in which him and his entirely male campaign team which I've just made up come off as patronising chauvinists. And then I'll present it as fact, but in a sort of tongue-in-cheek way which means I can't get done for defamation. That'll show him for consulting women on women's issues but not actually being one himself!'
Last edited:
sums it up perfectly for me
and this makes a valid point as well
It's a complete non starter from almost every angle. Even Diane Abbott didn't sound keen and had to resort to 'it's only a consultation'. And apparently now if women raise fair objections it's part of the liberal media smear campaign.
Having a 'fair objection' to the idea is one thing, a smear is an attempt to damage someone's reputation through misrepresentation of facts or false accusations. Implying that Corbyn is patronising, out-of-touch and a bit sexist in a paternalistic manner for floating an idea which was suggested to him by women and which a significant number of women support is a smear plain and simple.
There's no attempt in that article to have a reasoned debate about whether the policy would work or not, it's just yet another attack on Corbyn from a paper which presents itself as the voice of the progressive left.
Everything critical is a smear to Corbyn supporters, getting incredibly tiresome. He wants a consultation on it, well plenty of women are making their views known that they don't like it, but when they do it's apparently just a smear, not actual genuinely held views that a good way to prevent violence against women isn't to segregate them from all the nasty blokes. If Corbyn and his supporters really do want him to become leader of the opposition, they're going to have to get used to ideas of his being criticised by the country and the media, we aren't in the twitter echo chamber any more. When he puts an idea out into the public, he owns it, that's what leadership is. It's not being smeared because he's Jeremy and has a beard, it's being criticised as a shit idea.
Corbyn's been a London MP for over three decades, i refuse to believe that he has neither consulted upon nor researched the likely effects of the policy. This woolly, yet well-meaning act comes across as a bit false sometimes. I don't think it at all unreasonable to look at this story with a degree of cynicism.
There will be women who don't travel in these carriages, or must spend thirty minutes waiting on a deserted platform to board such, where is the provision for their safety?
More conspicuous CCTV and increased security/policing would be of far greater benefit to the safety of the passengers.
Perkins:
Sounds like a perffectly reasonable point to me.
There will be women who don't travel in these carriages, or must spend thirty minutes waiting on a deserted platform to board such, where is the provision for their safety?
More conspicuous CCTV and increased security/policing would be of far greater benefit to the safety of the passengers.
Perkins:
Sounds like a perffectly reasonable point to me.
Bollocks. If Perkins comes out and writes an article about why she doesn't think its a good idea that's fine. It crosses a line when it switches from 'I don't agree with this idea because...' to 'I don't agree with this idea and Jeremy Corbyn is an awful out-of-touch old man for even uttering the words 'women's carriage', regardless of who suggested it to him.'
You might be tired of the word 'smear', but it's equally tiresome seeing journalists who feel the need to consistently pepper their articles with unjustified character assassinations when they should be critiquing policy. Maybe if they stopped slinging shit at him they might be able to use the spare column space to actually put together a convincing argument as to why he shouldn't be leader.
To put it in Redcafe language - 'attack the post, not the poster'. Or to make it more fitting to this situation - 'attack the post, not the person who brought up the post because one of the people the post is about mentioned the post'.
I agree, women's carriages aren't a fix-all. But, as I've been saying for are while, no-one thinks they are Corbyn said as much almost in the same breath as mentioning women's carriages. This debate would be far less circular if people would just read what he said before launching to attack it.
edit - that quote you've edited in is a fair point, but it's not so much an argument for not having women-only carriages as an argument for not only having them. I very much doubt that someone who gets attacked on public transport is saying 'It's a shame I got attacked but the policy that would have prevented the attack isn't perfect so there'd be no point implementing it'
Last edited:
Why is the discussion about train carriages on the day these statistics were grudgingly released?:
Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures show:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...ied-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures
Thousands have died after being found fit for work, DWP figures show:
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...ied-after-fit-for-work-assessment-dwp-figures
@SteveJ - I assumed it would have been mentioned in the Politics at Westminster thread, has it not been?
I can't see anything referring to it in that thread, mate.