Male violence

And she's clear that she wasn't talking about him anyway

Well not really. He asked her “did you say it” and she says “yes but not to you. I was talking to my mum on the phone”. So she never denied that she was talking about him. Just that she wasn’t talking to him. And to be clear from what we know they’re both on the tube in same carriage. He’s not wearing a mask and she’s complaining about people not wearing masks on the tube to her mum on the phone. If he was only person in the vicinity with no mask, how can it not be about him?

But, yes if if this is what happened, it still doesn’t give him the right to follow, call her names and confront her. You don’t respond to harassment by harassing back.

Just like the thread where the woman in the grocery shop without a mask heard a passerby tut loudly and call her a name under her breath for not wearing a mask. The woman followed this person a few aisles over and then started arguing with and harassing them. The woman in this case also should not have followed and had a confrontation with a passer by just for making a rude comment.

He’s the c**t, he’s allowed to say and do want he wants yet she has to act how he deems appropriate? HE can jog on

We’d need to hear the full encounter to make a view. What did she say to him?

Yes, I agree completely it’s street harassment and intimidation. He’s clearly in the wrong no matter what she did/said on the tube. I think it should be investigated fully to see if threats were actually made towards her personal safety. It was obviously a very distressing thing for her to have to experience and it’s clear she was fearful it could become violent.

Many agencies have extended the definition of violence beyond just physical.

The Violence Prevention Alliance, who work with the WHO, define violence as:

“the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."

The Metropolitan Police define Violence Against the Person as:

“Includes a range of offences from minor offences such as harassment and common assault, to serious offences such as murder, actual bodily harm and grievous bodily harm.”

And certainly Shelter, include “humiliation, degradation, bullying, insults or harassment“ in their definition of domestic violence. (Obviously domestic violence not applicable here, just showing various expanded definitions).

He's an absolute arse. Forcing her to apologise with the thinly veiled threat of violence if she doesn't. Bet he wishes he'd worn a mask now that the whole world can see his ugly mug. Hope the police do something about it. Maybe a good covid fine for not wearing a mask and for threatening behaviour will help him re evaluate how he behaves towards women in the future.

The sheer entitlement on display by this man is unbelievable (and something I'm sure he absolutely would not grasp).

Whatever your stance on whether or not he was threatening her with actual violence, it's clear from what's filmed that he's assumed that this woman was making a pointed remark related to him to a third party.

1. He thinks that entitles him to follow her down the street calling her disgusting names.

1. He thinks this entitles him to knowingly intimidate her by doing so (he acknowledges insinuating her in the video).

1. When he is faced with the possibility that he may actually have misunderstood her original comments and that she was referring to someone other than him on her previous tube journey, he can't lose face by accepting the embarrassing state of affairs that he's just plain wrong and has abused her in this vile manner for no actual reason, so he feels entitled to aggressively insist she apologise for his misapprehension. Presumably because, when taking to her mother on the phone, she should have been considering - not that conversation with her family member - but the potential stupidity sensitivities of any man in her vicinity.

1. In response to bring told not to threaten people it sounds like he actually says, "the world's my oyster, I can do whatever the fuck I want". That's probably the closest he comes to getting it (but promptly loses the plot again with, "I'm a nice guy"...)

I hope he is prosecuted. It is not acceptable to behave in this way towards anyone and it's important that that message is publicly reinforced because an increasing number of people seem to think it is.

It would of course be up to the CPS to decide whether the verbal threats which can be heard come under the heading of "causes another to ... apprehend immediate unlawful violence," and it would then a jury to decide whether the CPS could prove its case.

But in her situation, I'd have certainly been "apprehending" immediate violence (as in perceiving it as a very real possibility). The question I suppose would be whether it was beyond reasonable doubt that the mythical "reasonable person" would apprehend it the same way.

Legal definition of assault:

Common Assault – s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988

An assault is any act (and not mere omission to act) by which a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to suffer or apprehend immediate unlawful violence.

The term assault is often used to include a battery, which is committed by the intentional or reckless application of unlawful force to another person. Where there is a battery, the defendant should be charged with ‘assault by beating’: DPP v Little [1992] QB 645. Provided there has been an intentional or reckless application of unlawful force the offence will have been committed, however slight the force.

Assault, as distinct from battery, can be committed by an act indicating an intention to use unlawful violence against the person of another – for example, an aimed punch that fails to connect. In Misalati [2017] EWCA 2226 the appellant spat towards the complainant. The appeal court confirmed that although there was no actual violence, spitting is an assault whether it makes contact with the victim or causes fear of immediate unlawful physical contact.

She is posh isn't she, look how she reacts to bring told to "jog on, you cunt", proper shocked ain't she. I hear that word multiple times a day!!

My point is merely that there was no violence and nothing he said (that I could hear) meets the legal requirements of a threat based on the evidence in her twitter post alone.

Was he harassing her? Yes
Was he being intimidating? Yes

Neither of these things are violence. Violence requires the use of physical force to cause bodily harm. There was no physical force or bodily harm.

I’m not defending his behaviour. I’m just trying to be accurate about what that behaviour was.

In this situation, the woman was talking on the phone to her mum saying rude things about the man who wasn’t wearing a mask on the tube. He gets upset as he feels it was about him and was said for all to hear. So he follows her and harasses her for being rude about him not wearing a mask and demands an apology. He should not have followed her and had a confrontation.

But because as he’s a man, him being upset is also intimidating and the woman starts claiming he’s threatening her (which I don’t hear on the video, the “I’m not threatening you, but I know people and if you’re going to be a rude girl” comment is cut off mid stream so we have no idea if he’s going to finish by saying “I will report you for harassing me for not wearing a mask on the tube when I’m exempt, or if he’s going to say “I will beat you up.” He never said he was going to “beat her up” on the recording. She repeatedly says he said that but he never said that on the video and everytime she claims it, he denies having threatened her at all. So this is unknown.

To be a threat, it has to be a specific promise to do physical harm.

However in her twitter feed she claims that moments after she first saw him approaching her, when she wasn’t filming but was on the phone with her mum, she writes that he said “you do realise I’ve called people to come beat you up”. She claims he said this during those moments between the two videos. But she also claims she hung up on her mum when he supposedly said this with the thought she better film this. So how did she have time between filming video #1 and #2 to call her mum back? In #1 she’s not on phone to mum, in video #2 literally seconds have passed from end of video #1. Where they are on street in both videos, there wasn’t time for another call to her mum in between video #1 and #2. So her story has a big question mark in it in regards to him saying a threat that wasn’t caught on video.

I’d really like if there were witnesses who could give more information as to what happened between them. Both on the tube and after. If he did threaten her on the street, someone must have seen and heard it.

I can’t believe some people watched that second video and thought his behaviour wasn’t intimidating or aggressive!!

Exactly, how can "I could get you beaten up you know" not sound intimidating? I sometimes wonder at some peoples motives on these boards, almost as if they're attempting to gaslight women re. male violence

I can’t believe some people watched that second video and thought his behaviour wasn’t intimidating or aggressive!! 🤷🏼‍♀️

My older brother has a sister (me) and he used to beat me up. So...

“I don’t beat women up, but I’ve got 2 sisters”.

Said the second he realises he’s being filmed. Pathetic.

And the sound of her apologising makes me want to cry.

The most telling thing, apart from the intimidating following in the street and threats of violence from the 'people' he can call on, is his entitled comment that the world is his oyster and he can do what he wants. She obviously can't, in his predatory view.

Public space is male space; males dictate what females are permitted to say and do. Having a voice, expressing a view - even on the phone to her mum - is too much personality and assertiveness for him to handle.

This is the sort of man who assumes all half-heard conversations and innocent laughter are about him and feels threatened. Women are in the world on his sufferance and must conform to his expectations.

So true. The list of my bad experiences with men is lurid and shockingly long. And most nice men have zero knowledge of this part of our lives.

Women have to put up wiht this sort of shit all the time.

You just never know when some bloke with anger issues will decide that as you're on your own and you're female so can't lamp him one, he'll threaten you with violence.

And yet no one acknowledges that this is the background to our lives.

This is really not a six of one / half a dozen on the other situation and anybody who can frame this as a 'disagreement' needs to have a good word with themselves

Yes, precisely.

I am always disappointed but sadly rarely surprised when posters pop up to tell us yet again that "it isn't really male violence and if it is she deserved it."

I'm sure some posters on this thread have already ticked off at least 4 or 5 of TheBewilderness's rules of misogyny (including "the worst thing about male-on-female violence is it makes men look bad")

The rules in his world go like this:

• he hears her talking about people not wearing masks on public transport and SHE must apologise to HIM

• he calls her a posh cunt and a slag and that's absolutely fine, because that's what she's behaving like in his view so that's exactly what she is.

This is really not a six of one / half a dozen on the other situation and anybody who can frame this as a 'disagreement' needs to have a good word with themselves.

What a sad little wanker he is.

But horribly intimidating for the young woman, and of course the terrifying thing when you're on the receiving end of that sort of behaviour is you don't know if it's going to escalate into physical violence.

Hope the police catch up with the little gobshite.

slag obviously. Because this is misogyny in action.