Are the recent predator schemes a step too far?

[Doone22]

I've been seeing lots on the news recently about various schemes to protect women from predators when they are outside their homes but are they going too far?

So I'm talking about schemes whereby either police patrols or AI cameras or both decide that a male is acting "inappropriately" near a woman and send someone to intervene before a crime is committed. But I really dislike the idea of this level of monitoring - we already have the most heavily filmed society in the world and big brother levels of policing what we say, even in private: because of course someone else gets to decide if we are allowed an opinion and if its the right one. Just this week it was announced yet another impediment to free speech with the Labour government going hard against criticising Islam. And who the hell decides what is inappropriate anyway?

There have been outcries before about the suggestion that science could predict who will grow up to commit crimes and intervene in the formative years to prevent it/ this doesn't seem much different but because its labelled as protecting women (sod the male victims) its ok?

On the news today the minister going out with the police patrols in Colchester was basically saying it was ok to get as drunk as you like because its society's job to keep women safe from predators. I think that's a terrible message - why abdicate all responsibility to the state? And its not a great idea for anyone to get so drunk they can't look after themselves - not just women but men put themselves in terrible danger from getting totally out of it (traffic accidents, falling in the river, getting into fights, getting assaulted). So in my mind its labelling lots of behaviour before a crime is committed but also ignoring men's safety. Why can't they call it what it is - a total invasion of privacy on the spurious assumption that AI can decide who is good and who is bad?

Change my mind - I really can't get my head around this.

Can you link to any of these news stories?

I listened to a feature on the radio recently about the huge number of sexual assaults on women on trains/tube - easy access to lots of women and easy get away in crowds. Issues with poor/non operational cctv coverage which is a disgrace.
There was also a discussion about proactive steps to challenge men who appeared to be getting too close/following/exhibiting intimidating behaviour towards women but had not yet committed an offence. Thought it was a good thing rather than a step too far.

Radio 4 File on 4 Investigation on 24/2/16 'No CCTV: When train attacks go unrecorded'

Good Morning Britain witnesses police crackdown on predatory behaviour | ITV News for example and Jess the safeguarding minister specifically re-iterated on interview on the sofa afterwards that women can get as drunk as they want, they're not responsible....horrific choice of words

I'm not complaining about CCTV on public transport being used to prosecute but this isn't to do with criminality - this is non criminal behaviour that "someone" has deemed inappropriate

But don't you think a proper police presence and CCTV on public transport should be used to tackle criminal behaviour rather than getting AI or whatever to decide if someone might in the future be a criminal?

Well of course women aren't at fault if they are assaulted. No matter how drunk they are.

Jess the safeguarding minister specifically re-iterated on interview on the sofa afterwards that women can get as drunk as they want, they're not responsible....horrific choice of words

They're not responsible for someone assaulting them when they're drunk.

Men are at risk from other men or their own actions when they are out drinking. It's not that men's safety doesn't matter, it's that (some) men's behaviour poses a risk and that is what needs to be managed.

I don't see the problem with police intervening in potentially predatory behaviour this happens all the time and is not just a new thing. If you are doing something out of the ordinary, the police if they see it may ask about what you are doing, espcially if those behaviors are sometimes associated with crime, if you're skulking around out the back of houses, you may be asked what you are doing there etc.

Stopping behaviour that could escalate is a good thing. Checking in with the woman to check if shes okay, also a great thing.

Jess Phillips was also right, its not the women that are responsible for attacks and rapes on them.

No, I don’t think this is step too far.

the article you linked talks about in person patrols looking to spot men hanging around where they shouldn’t be so they are stopped before somebody is raped or assaulted.

this is literally the point of police patrols - to stop illegal behaviour.

@Doone22 would you prefer that the cctv operators who are already monitoring the live footage just ignore the men and let them attack the women before doing anything about it or can you accept that they should be informing the police about these men before they rape, rob, assault or murder a woman?

You're being quite vague about what specifically you mean by "intervene" OP.
Distraction and other techniques are promoted in "conscious bystander" training.

There have been outcries before about the suggestion that science could predict who will grow up to commit crimes and intervene in the formative years to prevent it

Well yes... education, mental health services, benefits... What's wrong with these kind of interventions? If we can help reduce the risk of crime by tackling poverty, racism, mental illness etc why do you think we should choose not to?

I really don't see how anyone could be against the police actually doing their jobs and preventing a woman from being assaulted.

I am genuinely baffled, would you prefer the woman actually be assaulted?

What made me laugh with Jess Philips this morning on GMB was her saying that no other Prime Minister is as determined to prevent VAWG than Keir Starmer. Yet he's letting thousands of unknown men into the country and financially rewarding them on a daily basis.

There was a TV show on the other day about men having a curfew. Not that bad an idea, in honesty.

There used to be an entire team of Transport Police based at Oxford Circus just to watch out for pervs. What the hell is wrong with men?

I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s a clever idea to get paralytic. They are saying that a woman should be safe from predation by men whether she is paralytic or not. Why on earth would you have a problem with that? 🤔🧐

Not being at fault and not taking any responsibility for yourself are poles apart.

but it really brought home the point that women don't have to take any responsibility for their own personal safety - I think that goes quite a long way past not being at fault if they are assaulted

Just like someone wouldn’t be responsible for someone burgling them if they left their front door open, or leaving their phone on a pub table while going to the loo, but would certainly be criticised for not taking appropriate steps to protect their property. But not taking appropriate steps to protect themselves is fine?

don't agree with the Jess Philips bit because thats not what she was saying at all (even if thats what she meant) but yes I see what you mean - it just came across as very sexist as well: police should be protecting everyone from drunk men not just women

It's depressing that that needs pointing out!

I’m pretty sure that this scheme is not using any recognition techniques. The actual scheme does not identify people, it uses lasers to spot dangerous situations, ie someone loitering around a woman, following a woman etc. Also to be used for predicting crowd behaviour (I’m pretty sure that is the original use for it anyway), if it looks like groups are going to start trouble with other groups etc. There’s no facial recognition or anything like that. The laser shows people as “dots”. It was explained quite well in the BBC news article i read about it the other day. There will be nothing identifying about it at all. It’s to be used to send police to any worrying behaviours, in the hope of stopping/defusing criminal acts.

Of course women are not responsible for the behaviour of some men - but for goodness sake, we need to take some responsibility for how we behave! Getting so drunk you don't know what you are doing may well lead to women being harmed or even killed - it 'not being their fault' will not make them any less dead.

fair enough but there's also been reports on using AI to do the same - how do you feel about being watched every day by computers who decide what to do with your behaviour?