Possible UK MALE Curfew after 18.00 hours ??

[boja]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=sovhxatb7o0

Ban men from the streets after 6pm says Green Party Baroness! (4k)

The Sarah Everard case has understandably upset people. And it is especially concerning because the alleged perpetrator is a serving police officer.

And the concerns and fears women always have about going out after dark, have once again burst into the public consciousness.

With many women coming forward and talking about the fear they have of being alone in public both at night and during the day.

And I would guess that today will see a marked increase in profit for the purveyors of personal alarms, pepper sprays and the like.

And, as ever we will see massive knee-jerk over-reactions.

Step forward Baroness Jones of the Green Party.

Speaking from the red benches last night, she told her fellow peers:

"In the week that Sarah Everard was abducted and, we suppose killed, because remains have been found in a woodland in Kent, I argue that, at the next opportunity for any Bill that is appropriate, I might put in an amendment to create a curfew for men on the streets after 6 pm.

"I feel this would make women a lot safer, and discrimination of all kinds would be lessened."

Actually, this would increase discrimination by huge amounts - against men. But I'm not sure that either she or the Greens are much worried about that.

What she seems to be asking for, is to have men 'cancelled' after dark.

She may not realise this, but it would be a sort of chronological apartheid practiced against men.

And would this apply to all men in all professions and all trades? Emergency plumbers? Bus drivers? Taxi drivers? Doctors? Paramedics maybe?

And at what time would the curfew end? Midnight? 3 am? 5 am? 7 am? Or never?

And it would probably kill off the night-time hospitality trade completely.

But these days men can claim to be women, so how could they be stopped from wandering out?

But all that aside, the baroness is tarring all men with the same brush. As far as her statement goes, she's basically claiming that all men, every single one of them, are a serious danger to women.

Do men have the right to be offended at that? Not in the 21st Century it seems.

No, nowadays men are required to do a Harry, and just sit quiet and agree with everything she says.

So, what do you think about Baroness Jones? Please share, and comment below.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=uSJMlKxhXX8

The Welsh First Minister, Mark Drakeford, has refused to rule out using a curfew on men to help make women feel safer.

This comes hot on the heels of the Green Party peer, Baroness Jones, saying in response to the murder of Sarah Everard that she would put an amendment into the next appropriate bill to force a curfew on all men to keep them off the streets after 6pm.

So it's no wonder that Drakeford has jumped on the bandwagon, is it?

When asked about this when talking to the BBC, he said:

"If there were a crisis, and you needed to take dramatic action that allowed that crisis to be drawn down, then of course you'd be prepared to consider all measures that would make a difference.

"People need to be safe and to feel safe. And that's absolutely the sort of society we wish to create here in Wales."

But he did say that a curfew could only be a temporary answer and was therefore not at the top of his list.

And added that there are other things that could be done.

He should have ruled it out altogether as a stupid suggestion.

So, what's the next suggestion? Men and women can go out on alternate nights, maybe?

Are we seeing a new sort of segregation being pushed here - keeping men and women apart as much as possible?

I know, I'm overreacting.

But the next time a serial killer is on the loose, instead of telling women to stay indoors maybe we'll see an emergency order to keep men off the streets?

Anyway, I'm guessing that Drakeford was hoping to gain some of the female vote for himself and the Labour party in the May Senedd elections. But he may well have lost a lot of the male vote over this as well.

By talking about a curfew that could keep all men, including the perfectly safe 99.99 per cent, out of the pubs, just as lockdown might be starting to ease in the run up to summer.

WHAT CAN I SAY ??

[Tintin]

This is of course absolute bonkers and there will be an enormous amount of pushback from women - not just men. Somebody remarked on Twitter earlier (a woman) that this is one of those seeded/planted ideas as a part of a thought experiment, just to gauge response I would wager.

[Mecklenburger]

The police officer arrested on suspicion of kidnap and murder had a female accomplice who was also arrested, according to the Metropolitan Police spokesman on You Tube last night (11 March).

It may have been the female who made the victim feel "comfortable". So NOBODY must be out after six at night. The fact of the matter is, so long as we continue to have motor traffic on our roads, women and female children are always at risk no matter what the hour of day.

[Mike]

I agree with Ant. It's a feeler type thing maybe.

And what I think they do sometimes is: decide they want to implement something draconian, offer something even worse than what they want..knowing they'll get serious pushback, and then "settle" for what they originally wanted by appearing to compromise. David Icke has a name for that. Totalitarian tiptoe I think it is.

What would just be great tho if the thing was passed is if large swaths of men simply "identified" as women as a reaction

[The Moss Trooper]

Yep,

Bonkers is the right word, I also agree that this is some sort of thought experiment/Totalitarian tip-toe shenanigans.

I've been "identifying" as a vaccinated person recently...... So far, no problems.

[Mike]

Posted by The Moss Trooper (here)
Yep,

Bonkers is the right word, I also agree that this is some sort of thought experiment/Totalitarian tip-toe shenanigans.

I've been "identifying" as a vaccinated person recently...... So far, no problems.

Clever. But I have an even better idea - just identify as someone who is immune to virus' altogether

Anyone who disagrees will be regarded as an oppressor and thrown in jail for violating hate speech laws. Problem solved.

[Matthew]

Well, its a childish thing for her to say. And distracting. It was a Metropolitan PC with a background working with diplomats and VIPs in the capital. So how myopic do we go? A curfew for all Met Officers? A curfew for all male Met Officers? Perhaps the Metropolitan Police could recruit better? But he had an impressive background doing government level work. What were they meant to do? Strange how distracted we are from some of the awkward truths

[janette]

Is it April 1st today ??

[Mecklenburger]

The various police reports on YouTube this evening state that Police Constable Wayne Couzens of the Diplomatic Protection Squad has been charged with kidnap and murder. At Wandsworth police station on the evening of his arrest he sustained a head injury in his cell for which he was treated. He will appear on Saturday 13 March at Westminster Magistrates Court for a routine preliminary hearing.

After crossing Clapham Common towards 2130 hrs on the night in question Sarah Everard was seen by a traffic camera to make a cellphone call in Poynders Road, the last time she was seen alive. Police subsequently concentrated their search in flats at Poynders Court after which they went to a house in Kent. Their enquiries led to the discovery of a body in woods at Ashford.

[Mare]

I do believe the original comment from the Baroness was a backlash against the Met suggesting there should be a 6pm curfew for women? I’ll have to dig that out and get back to you.

[Sérénité]

If this genuinely was the context of her speech, then there’s a lot more to be feared about women like Baroness Jones being allowed to step foot in Parliament than there is of men in general.

It currently feels like the media is playing everyone off against everyone else...it’s like a massive game of divide and conquer.

There is anti-lock down protests planned for every major city around the world on the 20th March. Could this be a way to cause anger towards the police and untrust between male and female protestors?
No idea why this came to mind. But they always have an agenda for using unfortunate events to their gain for something...

[Patient]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by The Moss Trooper (here)
Yep,

Bonkers is the right word, I also agree that this is some sort of thought experiment/Totalitarian tip-toe shenanigans.

I've been "identifying" as a vaccinated person recently...... So far, no problems.

Clever. But I have an even better idea - just identify as someone who is immune to virus' altogether

Anyone who disagrees will be regarded as an oppressor and thrown in jail for violating hate speech laws. Problem solved.

Didn't the WHO redefine immunity to mean "a person that has had the vaccine"?

Well, you have right to identify as any one of the dozen or so new genders out there, and you have the right to change your mind. So, just go with what is necessary.

[safara]

Posted by Mare (here)
I do believe the original comment from the Baroness was a backlash against the Met suggesting there should be a 6pm curfew for women? I’ll have to dig that out and get back to you.

Is the correct answer.

Whenever there is dangerous man about, Police tell women to stay at home to keep safe. A curfew for women.

This lady is simply flipping that and giving people pause for thought saying that it should be men that stay at home to keep women safe.

The backlash on this suggestion by people shows just how misogynistic society is.

[Mike]

Posted by safara (here)

Posted by Mare (here)
I do believe the original comment from the Baroness was a backlash against the Met suggesting there should be a 6pm curfew for women? I’ll have to dig that out and get back to you.

Is the correct answer.

Whenever there is dangerous man about, Police tell women to stay at home to keep safe. A curfew for women.

This lady is simply flipping that and giving people pause for thought saying that it should be men that stay at home to keep women safe.

The backlash on this suggestion by people shows just how misogynistic society is.

That's preposterous.

Do you think a night prowling man who was brazen enough to murder would be swayed by a 6pm curfew for men? Do you imagine that would stop him? Be reasonable. Asking women to observe a curfew under these circumstances instead of men isn't some form of patriarchal favoritism, or misogyny. It's just the lesser of the evils, because it makes much more sense.

[safara]

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by safara (here)

Posted by Mare (here)
I do believe the original comment from the Baroness was a backlash against the Met suggesting there should be a 6pm curfew for women? I’ll have to dig that out and get back to you.

Is the correct answer.

Whenever there is dangerous man about, Police tell women to stay at home to keep safe. A curfew for women.

This lady is simply flipping that and giving people pause for thought saying that it should be men that stay at home to keep women safe.

The backlash on this suggestion by people shows just how misogynistic society is.

That's preposterous.

Do you think a night prowling man who was brazen enough to murder would be swayed by a 6pm curfew for men? Do you imagine that would stop him? Be reasonable. Asking women to observe a curfew under these circumstances instead of men isn't some form of patriarchal favoritism, or misogyny. It's just the lesser of the evils, because it makes much more sense.

Indeed - but makes you think about it and how vulnerable women still are. Which was the point of her comments.

[Tintin]

Really what we are seeing here is an already tired and drained UK population, that has been subject to a relentless psychological assault at the hands of the British state being played - again - by the promulgating by the 'old' media of yet more dangerous nonsense, this time using another 'authority' figure's comments (the Baroness in this instance) continuing the narrative, the divide-and-conquer strand, and further weaponising this. It may just be a 'moment'; it may be a seed-sowing exercise, to create a debate (sic) - we'll see.

I rather think this will blow over and be called out for the ludicrous bunk that it actually is, or, is my hope at least.

Right on cue it would seem, in tandem with my earlier comments about pushback, here we have two very well respected (okay, perhaps one) female public figures conducting a brief civil exchange on Twitter (Sue Cook is a brilliant old school journalist - Davina McCall a TV presenter):

Anyone is welcome to contact them directly and accuse them of *misogyny; they'll be no doubt glad to hear from you

*I'll have to check again but I'm fairly certain there's a debate taking place in the UK House of Lords (?) concerning amendments to a Bill around domestic issues incorporating these 'issues', such as they are, sometime this week.

[Mecklenburger]

The latest information about the case itself is that Wayne Couzens aged 48 appeared at Westminster Magistrates Court Saturday 13 March. He appeared in the dock with a female but the cirumstances surrounding this person were not reported. His application for bail was not granted and he was remanded in custody to appear at the Central Criminal Court on 16 March.

Other details that have emerged are that on 28 February he reportedly exposed himself sexually at a London fast-food location to a separate unnamed victim. The two head wounds he has sustained both occurred when he was alone in his cell. It is not known if they were self-inflicted.

There is a strip of grassed land alongside Couzens' house at Deal, Kent and this was in the process of being dug up by police on 12 March.

[Mecklenburger]

Further information on the crime itself; The body was found in Great Chart forest, Ashford, Kent in a bag used by builders to transport heavy loads. On Thursday 11 March a woman in her 30's was arrested on suspicion of being an accessory after the fact, appeared in court with the accused and was bailed to a date in mid-April. This woman lives at the same address in Deal as the accused.

[DeDukshyn]

What? Curfew for men to help "make women feel safer"?

That's absurd ... how about instead, we just force women to dress fully covered from head to toe in a flowing gown to hide their shape and cover their hair everything except their eyes so that they won't be luring men into raping them with their promiscuous physical presentations. [/s]

I feel I need to add an explainer here ...
My point is made in the irony -- by lumping all women into a category of being physically promiscuous and luring, causing the problem and thus presenting the solution to that generalized lumping, is akin to lumping and generalizing all men as attacking rapists, causing the problem, and thus presenting a solution to that generalized lumping. Both are equally absurd notions.

[Mike]

Posted by safara (here)

Posted by Mike (here)

Posted by safara (here)

Posted by Mare (here)
I do believe the original comment from the Baroness was a backlash against the Met suggesting there should be a 6pm curfew for women? I’ll have to dig that out and get back to you.

Is the correct answer.

Whenever there is dangerous man about, Police tell women to stay at home to keep safe. A curfew for women.

This lady is simply flipping that and giving people pause for thought saying that it should be men that stay at home to keep women safe.

The backlash on this suggestion by people shows just how misogynistic society is.

That's preposterous.

Do you think a night prowling man who was brazen enough to murder would be swayed by a 6pm curfew for men? Do you imagine that would stop him? Be reasonable. Asking women to observe a curfew under these circumstances instead of men isn't some form of patriarchal favoritism, or misogyny. It's just the lesser of the evils, because it makes much more sense.

Indeed - but makes you think about it and how vulnerable women still are. Which was the point of her comments.

Well, look..one moment we're talking about how women are vulnerable and need protection, and the next we're talking about how strong and capable they are. Both are true in a sense, but I feel like these descriptions change with the wind when it's politically advantageous. And I find it aggravating.

But I was singling out your accusation of misogyny, which doesn't make the slightest bit of sense in this context.