Bit victim blamey? And putting being attacked equal with being an attacker?

[JustBeyond]

That's my opinion, what do you think?

www.facebook.com/dorsetpolice/photos/a.718756231475885.1073741828.568402286511281/1618761368142029/?type=3

And yes, hypothermia does affect cognitive function but there would have been a window of time in which to think - and a longer window without the alcohol. But maybe I'm doing her a disservice - my brother lives in Norway and the dangers of drink and cold are pretty much drummed into you at an early age there - for obvious reasons. Maybe that message isn't so widespread in the UK.

SaphireStrange

I assumed we both knew the scenario being discussed was walking home drunk.

Because this is what I was answering...

Well maybe we should say don't walk home alone when you are drunk unless you intend to walk home drunk with your husband or your boyfriend or an ex in which case you are statistically more at risk than if you were walking home alone

So when the media department (which probably consists of about four people) looked at the events calendar and realised they needed a Christmas campaign they were faced with some initial options.

1. Shall we make it into short snappy statements which fit into an eye catching design?

Or

1. Shall we fill it with statistics, cover all the what if's, garner everyone's opinion and make it long so that people will be put off reading it.

It's a local campaign, every force will likely have their own running now. It's got people talking and I'm guessing everyone commenting on this thread isn't from Dorset, so it now has national coverage.
Job done I'd say.

Well maybe we should say don't walk home alone when you are drunk unless you intend to walk home drunk with your husband or your boyfriend or an ex in which case you are statistically more at risk than if you were walking home alone

Why should we say that? The husband/bf/ex are surely statistically more dangerous behind closed doors than in public. Maybe we should be telling women to be out in public by these males as often as possible.

This is getting a bit strange for me. The safety advice to wear a seat-belt while driving is not rendered irrelevant by the fact that people also die in car crashes while wearing one, and the fact that you would be even safer were you to never drive a car at all and stay away from them altogether.

Suffolk Police are working hard to try and find Corrie McKeague. Could things have been different if he hadn't become separated from his friends or hadn't had too much to drink?
(Please note I am in no way blaming anyone, just saying there is value in this campaign).

Gotta
It is also odd that everyone is assuming the advice is just about preventing being attacked.
It's not. It is about keeping safe in many situations and being able to make good decisions.

Well spotted. It is explicitly about being able to make good decisions and how alcohol reduces this ability.

For some reason, a lot of posters seem to be ignoring what it actually says and instead deciding that it says 'don't do this if you're drunk'.

I'm sorry Gotta, that looked like I was being a bit sarky at you. I was actually trying to be sarky to the people with the poor reading comprehension.

Ok, so the advert days ...you wouldn't do this [bunch of behaviours] if you were sober, so don't do it when you are drunk.

Included in [bunch of behaviours] includes walk alone in the dark. This is why some people, including me, have said, actually, I do walk around in the dark sober. It addresses the fact that the advert suggests walking around in the dark is the risk factor that is only done by crazy drunk people.

I'm just saying this to demonstrate that Dorset Police are talking about walking around alonr in the dark is dangerous and shouldn't be done and remarking on how ridiculously restrictive that would be. Just before I am accused of dragging the thread of on a hysterical tangent.

I think the general advice of don't walk home alone, don't get blazing drunk, don't wander off with strangers, etc is allways great advice. But it is great advice for men and women, and it is great advice to keep people 'safer' from things like alcohol posioning, falling and hitting their heads, getting in fights, as well as being at risk of crimes including rape.

That it is often rolled out as women shouldn't do these things because it leaves them at risk of sexual attacks is what makes it victim blamey.

I liked the campaign a while back from Lancashire police (I think) where the bug burly men where saying things like i listen when a wOman says no, when a woman is intoxicated I don't take advantage of her, etc. I think that type of campaign is more important- putting to focus on men being responsible for not raping women, not women being responsible for keeping thems elves safe from men.

No, Badtime I didn't see it like that. I got it.

Kondos , no it doesn't. It says 'if you were sober would you [do this]?' , then says 'don't make a decision you might regret'.

Many people on this thread (including me) have posted that they would walk home alone sober.

So 'if you were sober would you walk home at night alone?' Hell, yes. Where is the victim blaming?

It is all about how drinking affects decision making.

It is all about how drinking affects decision making

Exactly.
Anyone who thinks they can make sensible decisions when drunk is probably drunk.

If 'walking home alone in the dark' were a valid option afforded to those who are sober then why does it figure amongst a list of risky and criminal behaviours attributed to a drunkard?

If 'walking home alone in the dark' were a valid option afforded to those who are sober then why does it figure amongst a list of risky and criminal behaviours attributed to a drunkard?

Because you are statistically more likely to have an accident in the dark and you are drunk.

"If you were sober would you... walk home at night alone?...This Christmas don't make a decision you might regret"

It doesn't. It is on a list of things people may feel while sober to be risky or bad things to do, but may not feel the same when drunk, because alcohol impairs decision-making.

FFS - anyone can walk home alone if they like whether they are drunk or sober. No one is stopping you.
The ad is to make people think twice about their behaviour if they are drinking.
Also, no one is saying you are to blame if you are attacked.
I would think though that if you get pissed and fall over in the dark - then you are to blame.

In my opinion, walking home alone when very drunk (i.e. not just "tipsy" but completely out of it) is a bit like getting into the passenger seat of a car and not putting your seat belt on. It wouldn't be your fault if the car crashed, and even if you had put your seat belt on you might still have been hurt. But most people decide to minimise the risk to themselves by putting the seat belt on.

And even if you would walk home in the dark sober, you're more likely to make risky decisions while walking if you're drunk, e.g. taking a short cut and getting lost, or walking along a slippery river bank, or stepping out in front of a car.

Ok, well let's assume that the advert meant only to highlight the extra risk of walking around in the dark when drunk or high, I think the juxtaposition of the risky behaviour of victims and the criminal behaviour of attackers, is uncomfortable and certainly looks like victim blaming or worse - it minimises intentional violent criminal thuggery to the level of drunken thoughtlessness.

Minimising is not the same as victim blaming.

The walking alone thing is very annoying. You would be doing absolutely nothing wrong in walking alone and have a right to do so. This particular message is usually directed at women and it is not such a far cry from not being allowed out without a chaperone. While this can be seen as a gender neutral message; we are all already socialised to know which messages are intended for which gender.

Yes, of course it is. I think the conflation of the risky behaviour of victims and the criminal behaviour of attackers in the ad has the effect of simultaneously blaming victims and minimising criminal behaviours.

I mean, yes, of course you are correct that they are different Bad time. I believe both are present in the ad.