Is this victim blaming...?

[MissGoggins]

I noticed this article and it made me think about the now infamous judge's closing remarks on her last trial (regarding drunken women and increased vulnerability).

Is this different? Or by using the same logic, is issuing this warning 'victim blaming' those who have already been victims of this crime?

If the former, then how is it different?
If the latter, then what is the alternative?

www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/solihull/in-the-know/students-warned-not-to-use-local-solihull-park

Trying for a clicky link:

www.familiesonline.co.uk/local/solihull/in-the-know/students-warned-not-to-use-local-solihull-park

No. I don't believe so. Basically more than one armed person is targetting people for robbery in that park. Ongoing Police operation. It's like a temporary travel ban advice. They're not blaming students for walking through the park. They're emphasising it is a current high risk (that the students wouldn't necessarily be aware of).

It is advising caution.

When a student who is robbed is asked why they were alone, why alone at night, why carrying a mobile phone, whether they called their mugger beforehand, whether they had been drinking and whether they shagged the mugger, then it will be a fairer comparison.

Victim blaming in rape cases takes place in a toxic context and, as such, well-meaning judges need to think twice before offering 'advice'.

You would think so looking at some other threads. But no, none of it is victim blaming.

Trifle I believe that after this warning, some of your questions will be asked.

Especially, "why did you go in there when the police warned you not to."

I suppose I wonder if we should be outraged at the removal of these students liberty to walk through any park the choose.

Following the logic from the previous debates about the judges comments; why didn't the police make their message, "muggers stop mugging," instead of telling students what to do?

Telling muggers to stop mugging won't work. They know they are committing an illegal act, telling them not to do it won't help. If it did there wouldn't be any crime.

I don't think it is victim blaming to advise people that somewhere/something could be dangerous. The police tell you not to leave valuables in your car, not to leave doors and windows open in your house. I don't see how telling people that going to a certain place alone where there have been many crimes is victim blaming. If they don't tell you and something happens then they will soon be vilified for not warning people.

I can't work out whether this is goady, OP.

The police tell you not to leave valuables in your car, not to leave doors and windows open in your house

They do. But when you are robbed or burgled they don't ask you what you were wearing or whether you gave the attacker 'mixed signals' first.

It's certainly a provocative subject matter trifle. If you want to paint it as goady for that reason then I suppose you are correct. It is a topic that will prompt passionate opinions.

If you are suggesting it is intentionally provocative in order to start a 'row' you are mistaken.

I don't think a conversation like this should be off limits because MN has a made up word.

They do. But when you are robbed or burgled they don't ask you what you were wearing or whether you gave the attacker 'mixed signals' first.

No but your insurance company will want to know if your doors where locked and windows were closed.

MissGoggins:

That is because you sign a commercial contract with them under which you agree to do certain things, on the understanding that if you don't do those things they don't have to give you money.

That is a fair point trifle.

I don't know if any police now that will ask you what you were wearing of if you gave mixed signals. Maybe years ago but not now.

They might ask what you if you have the clothes you were wearing, for evidential purposes. Or to find you on cctv for example. I have asked victims of crime what they were wearing when they have been a victim of crime so they can be identified when cctv footage is viewed. When officers interview people that have been raped, they will ask if they said no/what they said. This is so that they have evidence that there was no consent.

Also, if your car is broken into or your house is burgled chances are you are not there so what you are wearing is irrelevant. If you are there and a victim of crime such as an assault you will be asked different questions than if your car is broken into when you have left it in a car park.

I don't think this is victim blaming. I don't think the judge (or now the victim agreeing with her) offering advice is victim blaming either.

You can give advice on how to put yourself at less risk without telling you that you are to blame for the actions of a third party.

trifle

well-meaning judges need to think twice before offering 'advice'.

She's likely to have more to do with rape cases and trials than most of us. She's also likely to be more intelligent than most of us. The girl which prompted her advice agreed with her.

Why are you qualified to tell them they're both wrong?

But when you are robbed or burgled they don't ask you what you were wearing or whether you gave the attacker 'mixed signals' first.

They'll ask if you left your window open or door unlocked.

In a closer comparison to rape, we can talk about you accusing a friend of taking one of your possessions but they say you gave it to them. I'm not trying to minimise rape, simply that in most rape cases and this comparison, sexual intercourse or the friend having the object are almost besides the point and fairly easily proved. The "mixed-signals" aspect does come in to both.

Are you aware that the complainant in HHJ Kushner's 'infamous' case has defended the judge's comments? In context what the judge was getting at was that there are some evil f*ers out there and women need to look after themselves (and each other); pretty much what your mum always told you. Not controversial, not anti-women just a plea for common sense. Ask yourself, if you saw someone in the street a bit worse for wear/ drunk would you check on them or walk on by?

MagentaRocks:

Perhaps. I don't necessarily mean they will use that phrase. They may well use phrases that amount to the same thing. Anyway, that is a debate we can't conclude here since the evidence isn't to hand.

Ask yourself, if you saw someone in the street a bit worse for wear/ drunk would you check on them or walk on by?

Before this case: walk on by.
After this case: with the help of at least one other witness find them some help. Call the police, ambulance, ensure their safety. I would not let a male 'friend' take them home.

Not sure what that says about me, just an honest response to to your question.

CheWasABitOfAHomophobe:

Is the implication of your comment that anyone likely to be more intelligent than me is qualified to say anything they like, and I can't object, even on reasonable grounds?

I have already responded to the point about insurance to a pp. I won't go over it again. It is actually an offensive trope - I don't insure my body against rape so no-one has the right to ask me what I did or didn't do to make sure no-one committed a crime against me. Not a judge, not you. DFOD.

Following the logic from the previous debates about the judges comments; why didn't the police make their message, "muggers stop mugging," instead of telling students what to do

Wow, why has noone thought of that before? The poor mugger probably has no idea he is committing a crime, that the police might arrest him and he will have to go to court and maybe a prison sentence. Society has really let them down.

pretty much what your mum always told you

She's not my mum. That is paternalism (sweetly dressed up as materialism!). No-one has the right to attempt to police my perfectly legal behaviour. Her job is to pass sentence on people whose behaviour isn't legal. The rest isn't her business.

Trifleorbust The thing is if you spend you life being offended... well nothing.

Your offended. But then what? What is the point or purpose of being offended.

grannytomine I know, right!? If only I ruled the world...

Anyway, I think the question about whether the OP was being goady has been answered.

Why not just say what you mean?

Trifle I'm not even sure what goady is and I make a concerted effort not to learn the definition of a made up word.

If this conversation isn't for you, you don't have to keep on posting.

Your offended. But then what? What is the point or purpose of being offended.