Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Dickhead threatening to burn my hair!!

312 replies

ClockworkAngel · 07/02/2015 04:34

I have just got in from an otherwise good night out. Rarely I have a child free night so I went out with a good friend for her birthday.
I was having a brilliant time but she had invited some friends of hers. All of them are lovely but one. I disliked him from the start. He kept criticising me. For instance he kept calling me boring because I wasn't drinking alcohol but kept on and on all night about it, telling me I needed to 'cheer up and smile' and 'get a few more drinks down and loosen up'. Really fucking annoying.
Towards the end of the night, waiting for taxis, I ended up talking to an old friend I happened to bump into and as my back was turned, this guy took a lighter out his pocket and threatened the others he would burn my hair. He lit the lighter and held it up really close to my hair.
I couldn't get over what this guy had done but everyone else said I was overreacting and that it's 'only hair'. But that isn' t the point is it? If he had threatened to burn my skin everyone would be up in arms but why is it any different because it's my hair?
Am I overreacting? It happened over and hour ago and I'm still thinking about it. Do I need to get a grip?
I think my problem is that I just cannot get over how fucking thick some people can be. Doesn't take a genius to work out that burning someone's hair or whatever is potentially dangerous.
TIA

OP posts:
MuthaHubbard · 07/02/2015 16:03

Public order offences should be and is reported to the police - it's an offence (i.e. against the law). People are prosecuted of these offences all the time.

Definition of Section 4 Public Order is 'causing harassment/alarm/distress...' - I would be more than alarmed and distressed if someone threatened to set fire to my hair

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:03

Sardine, the way victims of sex offences have been treated in the past is appalling, I would agree. I have only had them reported to me a handful of times (not my role to investigate them) however on those occasions it has, my default position is to believe them. I have NEVER told them to go away or ignore them. I have taken the first account before passing it onto the specialists.

Do you think female victims need more time and effort put in to them regardless of what they are reporting then? I only ask because with the exact circumstances as outlined in the op I would tell both male and female not to bother reporting

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:05

Mutha not according to our friendly police officer on the thread is isn't.

I'm surprised they can prosecute threats made over the internet successfully when threatening someone when you are standing right next to them is OK Confused

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:05

"People keep saying "why call the police" because he hasn't committed a crime!! Yes he's been an arsehole but that doesn't mean the police should get involved. The police would not "record" this either!!"

MuthaHubbard · 07/02/2015 16:06

And the police do prosecute people for shouting and swearing in the street - frequently. Well they do in my force.

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:07

I have said all along its a public order offence...

MuthaHubbard · 07/02/2015 16:07

I work for my local force and prepare files for public order offences to be prosecuted at court quite regularly

Eltonjohnsflorist · 07/02/2015 16:09

Sardine you said he was a sex offender. Ie someone who committed a sexual offence. Setting someone of the opposite gender on fire isn't a sexual offence it's assult/ Gbh/ abh/ attempted murder. It's not a sexual crime

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:09

No you haven't. You said :

"People keep saying "why call the police" because he hasn't committed a crime!"

Then when people questioned this you said :

"Threats to kill are a crime (with really specific parameters) threats to assault someone via a third party is NOT a crime. Therefore it would not be recorded"

And then when people questioned this you stated:

"Yep but the threat to burn her hair was made to a third party. The lighter close to her hair is not an offence"

Then when some more people said WTF are you talking about you eventually said:

"No such crime as "threatening behaviour" at a push may come under public order act. It absolutely wouldn't go anywhere though"

Which is hardly "saying all along it's a public order offence" now is it.

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:10

Pressed send too soon. I have said all along its a public order offence at a push.

And this would meet threshold would it mutha?

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:11

Did I?

I thought I said that it was a "sex based offence".

And have talked broadly about sex based violence and the police treatment of it.

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:12

Maverick no you haven't I have just cut and paste the posts where you didn't for crying out loud.

The fact that you are denying what is there in black and white is bizarre!

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:14

I'll make a bet with you if you like sardine. If she reports it, as described as in the op and the cps take it forward to trial, I will pay £20 to the charity of your choice

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:15

Oh I would say that a man setting a woman on fire is almost always going to be a sex based offence BTW.

Men setting women on fire is usually because they are women not because they feel like it.

There is a long tradition of women being burnt to death in many societies throughout history.

SardineQueen · 07/02/2015 16:16

What on earth?

You told her that what the man did was not a crime and that reporting it would be wasting police time and generally your view is that men threatening to set women on fire is not a sex based offence and you are an acting police officer.

I mean christ almighty.

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:17

Okay, granted not all along! I started to see posters point about S4 and can see how it could be seen as that, however I still don't think it would go anywhere

scallopsrgreat · 07/02/2015 16:18

Loving your work on here SQ. Couldn't agree more with you.

It is the escalation in this case which is frightening. The sexual harassment started in the pub and then when it became clear that wasn't having the desired effect he became directly violent/threatening. I would have thought that the police would want to know about men when they display to all who they really are.

And yy to ApocalypseThen and naming the problem. How are we supposed to tackle male on female violence (sexual or otherwise) if we can't name it? This man only harassed the OP because she was a woman and because her boundaries didn't matter to him. He is a dangerous man. And it won't have been the first time he's been violent and threatening towards women. There will be patterns there.

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:19

Show me which part of law covers "sex based" offences? I'm genuinely interested

MuthaHubbard · 07/02/2015 16:30

With enough evidence then yes it would - statements from witnesses, cctv evidence, his previous etc. If I was with the OP at the time, I would also feel alarmed and distressed.

Section 4 can cover a variety of distressing and alarming incidents and one persons distressing is something someone else would just shrug off.

People are regularly arrested for shouting swear words in the street under Section 4.

"an offence under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, the Prosecution will need to prove that: That you have used threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour towards another person"

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:30

Scallops, how was he sexually harassing her in the pub?

SmillasSenseOfSnow · 07/02/2015 16:31

Loving the tendency to approach gaslighting behaviour rather than admit you were wrong, Maverick. Just what everyone wants in a police officer. Keeping that public confidence high...

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:32

"People are regularly arrested for shouting swear words in the street under section 4"
Not post event they're not!

Mavericklovesgoose · 07/02/2015 16:35

Smillas- I did admit I was wrong. My post at 16:17.

scallopsrgreat · 07/02/2015 16:38

I don't think SQ was referring to sex based offences as being a legal definition. More an actual definition i.e. naming the problem.

And I'm not sure that anyone on this thread would be overtly surprised that this is unlikely to go to court (despite witnesses). That wasn't the reason a number of us were saying report.

And really? You don't think he was sexually harassing her in the pub? Telling her to 'smile' and cheer up. Criticising her. Telling her to loosen up. Coz men regularly say that to other men they hardly know. Telling a woman to smile is something that men do to women they don't know all the time. It is designed to be intimidating and focus the woman's attention away from whatever they were doing on to the man. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Nicknacky · 07/02/2015 16:39

I think posters are being confused with their perception of "sex based crime". It is not a sexually aggravated offence, and would not be treated as a sexual offence.

He may well have done the same to a male with long hair, for all we know.