Jeremy Corbyn attacked over women-only train 'segregation'

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 12:36 pm

Rival candidate Yvette Cooper savages plan to consider introducing women-only railway carriages in bid to reduce sexual assault.

• Jeremy Corbyn proposes women-only train carriages
• Yvette Cooper says plan amounts to 'segregation'
• Public divided over plan to cut sexual assault numbers
• Equality groups criticise the plan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11824560/Jeremy-Corbyn-attacked-over-women-only-train-segregation-live.html

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:00 pm

And what he actually said:

Jeremy Corbyn has launched a street harassment policy and proposed a consultation on women-only carriages on public transport.
The leadership candidate has proposed a series of measures to stop street harassment, which his team point out women have to deal with on a daily basis. This would include creating a ministerial role for women’s safety and encouraging local authorities to appoint cabinet positions for women’s safety.
Corbyn has also said he would consult with women to hear their views on whether women-only carriages on trains would be welcome. His team have said that their aim is to make public transport safe for everyone, and that some women have told the campaign that women-only carriages could be a solution to the rise of sexual assault and harassment on public transport.
The Islington North MP has also said he would set up a policy hotline dedicated to reporting harassment and assault. This would be staffed by women around the clock, in an effort to ensure women who use the hotline will do so with the confidence that they will not be “made to feel small or dismissed”. Home visits would also be carried out by women under this policy.
Corbyn would also launch an advertising campaign aimed at combatting street sexism and set up regional summits of local authorities, universities, transport authorities, police, women’s organisations and campaigns to discuss practical steps to deal with street harassment.
Jeremy Corbyn explained the policies, saying:
“If elected Labour Leader I would welcome working with women and women’s organisations to take steps to raise awareness and to tackle this issue.

“The excellent work of individuals, campaigns, and groups like Everyday Sexism and Stop Street Harassment has highlighted just how prevalent street harassment is in our country today; and the extent to which many women feel uncomfortable, anxious, and unsafe just going about their daily routines.
“It is simply unacceptable that many women and girls adapt their daily lives in order to avoid being harassed on the street, public transport and in other public places from the park to the supermarket. This could include taking longer routes to work, having self-imposed curfews, avoiding certain means of transport.”

http://labourlist.org/2015/08/jeremy-corbyn-reveals-proposals-to-tackle-street-harassment/

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:08 pm

And he is right, women do adapt their behaviour. A consultation process is a great idea. Yvette Cooper should zip it. She isn't having to use public transport.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:10 pm

Eh? Whether it is just an idea or not its one his has very much taken a positive view for Stassi

How about some opinion on the matter whether people agree on disagree on women only carriages?

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:12 pm

For those interested how they work in other countries:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11824962/Women-only-trains-and-transport-How-they-work-around-the-world.html

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:14 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Eh? Whether it is just an idea or not its one his has very much taken a positive view for Stassi

How about some opinion on the matter whether people agree on disagree on women only carriages?

This has been a message on behalf of the plain English society

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:16 pm

Nems wrote:And he is right, women do adapt their behaviour. A consultation process is a great idea. Yvette Cooper should zip it. She isn't having to use public transport.

Worry like mad when my grandaughter goes home on the train a bit late when she has been over, always make sure her phone is charged while she is here and she rings me when she gets in.

The good thing about JC is he consults and listens rather than tells.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:19 pm

Nems wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:Eh? Whether it is just an idea or not its one his has very much taken a positive view for Stassi

How about some opinion on the matter whether people agree on disagree on women only carriages?

This has been a message on behalf of the plain English society

No such society exists.

I am on the fence on this as to me you would be better having security on trains late at night.
You already need the staff to enforce the policy, so the money would be better spent on security staff.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:21 pm

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

His team have said that their aim is to make public transport safe for everyone

And as Corbyn said, I'm not a woman, it's not for me to say, it's for woman to say.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:23 pm

sassy wrote:http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

And as Corbyn said, I'm not a woman, it's not for me to say, it's for woman to say.

Why just women though?

This is the point as if its just women that face danger?
Again you would be better placed to have security on tubes and trains at night for all passengers safety.
Its a fat lot of good if you have people enforce at a station the women only carriage and the next one along a male gets the crap beaten out of him.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:25 pm

In the document Corbyn stresses that he would prefer not to introduce women-only carriages. “Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself,” he says.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:27 pm

Prefer?
Great which means he clearly will not chose the better option which would mean the safety of everyone.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:27 pm

"Some women have raised with me that a solution to the rise in assault and harassment on public transport could be to introduce women-only carriages. My intention would be to make public transport safer for everyone from the train platform to the bus stop to the mode of transport itself. However, I would consult with women and open it up to hear their views on whether women-only carriages would be welcome – and also if piloting this at times and on modes of transport where harassment is reported most frequently would be of interest"

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:28 pm

So we are now having to endure Sassy spamming again.

Reported.

This is a debate forum, not twitter.

Say hello to my fan club

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:31 pm

Which shows you didn't read, as they are different. Fancy a politician actually listening to people and being willing to discuss. My word, how terrible.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:34 pm

sassy wrote:Which shows you didn't read, as they are different. Fancy a politician actually listening to people and being willing to discuss. My word, how terrible.

Finally some of her own words.
An idiot politician who panders to gain votes, I doubt he gives a shit to be honest, espcially the more I read about his pandering to extreists.
It is clear he is looking to gain further support to gain the leadership, with claims to act on aspects, which is nothing more than hotair at the end of the day, as actions speak louder than words. We have seen his actions in the company he keeps.

Again the best view to protect all would be to have security staff in trains.
As what do you decide if someone is transgender?
Hence why looking to only look to the safety of one group of people is flawed.
You look to safeguard all.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:38 pm

Shame when it's your words no-one can unstand them. Gave you his words because you were talking about an article that misinterpretted his words. It's a idea put out for discussion because people have been talking to him about it. That's the way good democracy works.

And if you actually bother to read, he is talking about the safety of everyone on every mode of public transport.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:40 pm

sassy wrote:Shame when it's your words no-one can unstand them.
Poor deflection with no relevance to the debate and looking to shit stir as per usual when you have no answer

Gave you his words because you were talking about an article that misinterpretted his words. It's a idea put out for discussion because people have been talking to him about it. That's the way good democracy works.

His words are hot air as far as I am concerned when I have seen his action in the company he keeps which tends to be extremists who hold discrminating views of women. That stands out to me more than anything and why I am very skeptical of anything he states.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:41 pm

Yvette Cooper is vile and utterly disingenuous - and her comments today just prove how low she'll go

This is not about segregation - this is about choice. Whether some women will feel comfortable in a woman only carriage. Perhaps even with a guard/person inside the carriage.

Women who feel more secure can still use the other carriages.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:45 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yvette Cooper is vile and utterly disingenuous - and her comments today just prove how low she'll go

This is not about segregation - this is about choice. Whether some women will feel comfortable in a woman only carriage. Perhaps even with a guard/person inside the carriage.

Women who feel more secure can still use the other carriages.

That is a very sexiest view, as what about men that do not feel safe, are they just left to defend for themselves?
Again I am all for protecting women, but also men, Transgenders etc. Not everyone feeels safe on the trains and tubes at night do they.
So would not placing guards on trains be best to make all groups feel comfortable?
All should feel comfortable/safe and all this does is bring about inequality.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:51 pm

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:52 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yvette Cooper is vile and utterly disingenuous - and her comments today just prove how low she'll go

This is not about segregation - this is about choice. Whether some women will feel comfortable in a woman only carriage. Perhaps even with a guard/person inside the carriage.

Women who feel more secure can still use the other carriages.

That is a very sexiest view, as what about men that do not feel safe, are they just left to defend for themselves?
Again I am all for protecting women, but also men, Transgenders etc. Not everyone feeels safe on the trains and tubes at night do they.
So would not placing guards on trains be best to make all groups feel comfortable?
All should feel comfortable/safe and all this does is bring about inequality.

Lol! Maybe someone has attempted to mug or butt-rape you or some other pussy on a train but I have never felt insecure on any train - day or night.

Most men feel adequately secure on public transport. Women on the otherhand are more vulnerable.

Equality doesn't mean we are all the same. Men are in general, stronger than women. Pat Butcher being the exception.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:53 pm

And you place that int he same context of who he has met?
Wow

I do not think we should do buisness with any regeme that has so many discrminating laws.
Talk about a deflection where nobody was making a view on left or right, but only the extreme lefty makes it so.
Face facts he has many extremist friends, who have little regard for women.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:56 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

That is a very sexiest view, as what about men that do not feel safe, are they just left to defend for themselves?
Again I am all for protecting women, but also men, Transgenders etc. Not everyone feeels safe on the trains and tubes at night do they.
So would not placing guards on trains be best to make all groups feel comfortable?
All should feel comfortable/safe and all this does is bring about inequality.

Lol! Maybe someone has attempted to mug or butt-rape you or some other pussy on a train but I have never felt insecure on any train - day or night.

Most men feel adequately secure on public transport. Women on the otherhand are more vulnerable.

Equality doesn't mean we are all the same. Men are in general, stronger than women. Pat Butcher being the exception.

So yet again the child mentality shines through.
You think its only about sexual abuse?
To claim most men feel safe is so arrogantly poor to say the least.
Again it does not matter how many on ratio because men do get beaten up on trains.
This is about safety, or had you not figured that out yet?
I am really not concerned about how you feel personally when you go out as I am the same not worried, but there is others who certainly are.
Men are not equal to other men in strengh, so you just defeated your own sexiest argument.
Yopu safeguard all, which is what is needed.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:59 pm

The 2nd picture was not Saudi

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 1:59 pm

sassy wrote:The 2nd picture was not Saudi

Who cares, its a poor deflection.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:02 pm

And the actual subject is the fact that women asked him to look into it, so he has put it out for discussion and said that as far as he is concerned, everyone's safety is paramount.

The rest is just spin and people like dodge trying to make it into something it isn't, as normal.

Can you imagine Cameron actually listening to anyone or giving a rat's arse?

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:02 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Maybe someone has attempted to mug or butt-rape you or some other pussy on a train but I have never felt insecure on any train - day or night.

Most men feel adequately secure on public transport. Women on the otherhand are more vulnerable.

Equality doesn't mean we are all the same. Men are in general, stronger than women. Pat Butcher being the exception.

So yet again the child mentality shines through.
You think its only about sexual abuse?
To claim most men feel safe is so arrogantly poor to say the least.
Again it does not matter how many on ratio because men do get beaten up on trains.
This is about safety, or had you not figured that out yet?
I am really not concerned about how you feel personally when you go out as I am the same not worried, but there is others who certainly are.
Men are not equal to other men in strengh, so you just defeated your own sexiest argument.
Yopu safeguard all, which is what is needed.

1st: I said MUGGING And Butt-rape - funny how you just focussed on that bit
2nd: I know it's about safety - the safety of women, who feel they are continuously gropped or worse on trains.

If you think men need protection, when was the last time some man squeezed your balls "accidentally"?

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:06 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

So yet again the child mentality shines through.
You think its only about sexual abuse?
To claim most men feel safe is so arrogantly poor to say the least.
Again it does not matter how many on ratio because men do get beaten up on trains.
This is about safety, or had you not figured that out yet?
I am really not concerned about how you feel personally when you go out as I am the same not worried, but there is others who certainly are.
Men are not equal to other men in strengh, so you just defeated your own sexiest argument.
Yopu safeguard all, which is what is needed.

1st: I said MUGGING And Butt-rape - funny how you just focussed on that bit
2nd: I know it's about safety - the safety of women, who feel they are continuously gropped or worse on trains.

If you think men need protection, when was the last time some man squeezed your balls "accidentally"?

1) Eh? You did, I never even mentioned it, so you are just proving even more you are nothing but a clown and how I easily show up your immaturity, where you seem obsessed with anal rape
2) So the safety of men, disabled, elderly men, transgender, fathers with children etc do not matter then, only the safety of women to you?
3) Again I am all for protecting women who do suffer countless sexual abuse.
4) So you think all men can protect themselves now? You seem to be fixated on sexual abuse, and not just any violence which occurs, and hence why your views are at best plain dumb.

by Raggamuffin Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:08 pm

I used to go on the Underground late at night quite often, and I didn't feel unsafe. There were usually quite a few other people around.

There's no point having women-only carriages if there's nobody there to enforce it and stop men going in them anyway.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:13 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I used to go on the Underground late at night quite often, and I didn't feel unsafe. There were usually quite a few other people around.

There's no point having women-only carriages if there's nobody there to enforce it and stop men going in them anyway.

Which is what he said and the reason why it would have to be looked at in the context of everyone being safe on every type of public transport.

And of course, he uses it:

Jeremy Corbyn attacked over women-only train 'segregation' 17ad3739-f497-45a0-8971-4d3c0d1d019b-1530x2040

Jeremy Corbyn attacked over women-only train 'segregation' 17ad3739-f497-45a0-8971-4d3c0d1d019b-1530x2040

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:16 pm

Which is also why he has the lowest expenses claim of any MP

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/news/politics/islington_north_mp_jeremy_corbyn_is_the_country_s_lowest_expenses_claimer_1_748369

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 2:22 pm

Great we get you worship him which is no surprise with the company he keeps, so back to the debate.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:03 pm

sassy wrote:
Nems wrote:And he is right, women do adapt their behaviour. A consultation process is a great idea. Yvette Cooper should zip it. She isn't having to use public transport.

Worry like mad when my grandaughter goes home on the train a bit late when she has been over, always make sure her phone is charged while she is here and she rings me when she gets in.

The good thing about JC is he consults and listens rather than tells.

I agree and that is why they fear him

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:04 pm

Nems wrote:
sassy wrote:

Worry like mad when my grandaughter goes home on the train a bit late when she has been over, always make sure her phone is charged while she is here and she rings me when she gets in.

The good thing about JC is he consults and listens rather than tells.

I agree and that is why they fear him

You got to be kidding, I hope he wins the labour leadership as it will spell no chance of Labour winning the next election.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:06 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yvette Cooper is vile and utterly disingenuous - and her comments today just prove how low she'll go

This is not about segregation - this is about choice. Whether some women will feel comfortable in a woman only carriage. Perhaps even with a guard/person inside the carriage.

Women who feel more secure can still use the other carriages.

Exactly, Corbyn is talking about choice and he should be praised for encouraging this debate.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:07 pm

Nems wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yvette Cooper is vile and utterly disingenuous - and her comments today just prove how low she'll go

This is not about segregation - this is about choice. Whether some women will feel comfortable in a woman only carriage. Perhaps even with a guard/person inside the carriage.

Women who feel more secure can still use the other carriages.

Exactly, Corbyn is talking about choice and he should be praised for encouraging this debate.

Its not really choice though is it when only one group is being offered that choice.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:34 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Nems wrote:

Exactly, Corbyn is talking about choice and he should be praised for encouraging this debate.

Its not really choice though is it when only one group is being offered that choice.

So you want one cabin for:

- women
- men
- LGBTT's

Each with their own guard.

That's just plain stupid - but that is exactly what you're suggesting. That's not practical.

Having a guard in each mixed carriage is not going to stop the "accidental grop".

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 3:41 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its not really choice though is it when only one group is being offered that choice.

So you want one cabin for:

- women
- men
- LGBTT's

Each with their own guard.

That's just plain stupid - but that is exactly what you're suggesting. That's not practical.

Having a guard in each mixed carriage is not going to stop the "accidental grop".

Incorrect again.
I suggest you read back to what I suggested.
There are many vunerable groups where I suggest protecting them all.
By protecting only one you openly discrminate against others who are vunerable.
What I suggest is placing personnel on trains to protect all.
So calm down before you fall over with excitement.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:38 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

So you want one cabin for:

- women
- men
- LGBTT's

Each with their own guard.

That's just plain stupid - but that is exactly what you're suggesting. That's not practical.

Having a guard in each mixed carriage is not going to stop the "accidental grop".

Incorrect again.
I suggest you read back to what I suggested.
There are many vunerable groups where I suggest protecting them all.
By protecting only one you openly discrminate against others who are vunerable.
What I suggest is placing personnel on trains to protect all.
So calm down before you fall over with excitement.

I suggest you read the last sentence of my post again.

Let me break it down for you as your stubbornness has made you blind to what many posters are saying:

How is a guard going to stop an "accidental grope"?

The victim complains to guard and the perpetrator denies it. Nothing happens and nobody is held to account.

One way to minimise the risk is for a separate cabin.

No need to get high and mighty about. This discussion is about a solution to a particular problem.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:42 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Incorrect again.
I suggest you read back to what I suggested.
There are many vunerable groups where I suggest protecting them all.
By protecting only one you openly discrminate against others who are vunerable.
What I suggest is placing personnel on trains to protect all.
So calm down before you fall over with excitement.

I suggest you read the last sentence of my post again.
No need to
Let me break it down for you and your stubbornness has made you blind to what many posters are saying:
Boring and irrelevant
How is a guard going to stop an "accidental grope"?
Its called a deterrant
The victim complains to guard and the perpetrator denies it. Nothing happens and nobody is held to account.
The guard calls the Police and has them waiting at the next stop to investigate, they can enusre the train remains between stations until the Police arrive.
One way to minimise the risk is for a separate cabin.
Which does not minimse for any other vunerable group the point you have missed throughout
No need to get high and mighty about. This discussion is about a solution to a particular problem.

Yes which you offer only a partial solution to, where again you seem to think this is only about sexual abuse
That is why your views fall apart, its only looking to help one group for a particular problem where if you have guards within a carriage all who feel vunerable can sit within that carriage. I suggest you rethink because you only want to help some people where my view is to help all. Again what about disabled? Elderly men? Fathers with children? Its not just about sexual problems as you naively think.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 4:51 pm

Anyway I am off home, so lets see you have actually understood my points for when I look in later.

by eddie Wed Aug 26, 2015 5:46 pm

Sorry I think it's bloody stupid.

What about black only carriages so no one suffers racial harassment? What about gay only carriages so men don't sexually harass other men?

We are just going backwards!!

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:19 pm

eddie wrote:Sorry I think it's bloody stupid.

What about black only carriages so no one suffers racial harassment? What about gay only carriages so men don't sexually harass other men?

We are just going backwards!!

Agreed Eddie alien

This makes no sense, ALL passengers deserve to be able to use public transport safely.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:22 pm

Jeremy Corbyn is "completely bonkers", Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has said.

His comments came as the frontrunner for the Labour leadership came under attack from rivals Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall for floating the idea of women-only carriages on trains.

Wales, who lives in London, frequently tweets about politics and the Labour Party leadership contest. On Tuesday he said: "I wonder how many people sent in their ballots for @jeremycorbyn and now deeply regret it."

And added by way of explanation: "Because on a wide range of issues, it's become clearer and clearer he's completely bonkers."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/26/jeremy-corbyn-is-completely-bonkers-says-wikipedia-founder-jimmy-wales_n_8042484.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:23 pm

feelthelove wrote:
eddie wrote:Sorry I think it's bloody stupid.

What about black only carriages so no one suffers racial harassment? What about gay only carriages so men don't sexually harass other men?

We are just going backwards!!

Agreed Eddie

This makes no sense, ALL passengers deserve to be able to use public transport safely.

Agree with you both, it should be safety for all and that extra measures are put in place that help provide safety for all.

by Fuzzy Zack Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:34 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I suggest you read the last sentence of my post again.
No need to
Let me break it down for you and your stubbornness has made you blind to what many posters are saying:
Boring and irrelevant
How is a guard going to stop an "accidental grope"?
Its called a deterrant
The victim complains to guard and the perpetrator denies it. Nothing happens and nobody is held to account.
The guard calls the Police and has them waiting at the next stop to investigate, they can enusre the train remains between stations until the Police arrive.
One way to minimise the risk is for a separate cabin.
Which does not minimse for any other vunerable group the point you have missed throughout
No need to get high and mighty about. This discussion is about a solution to a particular problem.

Yes which you offer only a partial solution to, where again you seem to think this is only about sexual abuse
That is why your views fall apart, its only looking to help one group for a particular problem where if you have guards within a carriage all who feel vunerable can sit within that carriage. I suggest you rethink because you only want to help some people where my view is to help all. Again what about disabled? Elderly men? Fathers with children? Its not just about sexual problems as you naively think.

Wasn't Corbyn talking about sexual abuse? It is you who has widened the goal posts.

And do you really expect the Police to be able to investigate an accidental grope. The perpetrator can easily deny it as an accident.

And all you have done is delayed the rest of us during the stoppage and investigation. That is logistically impractical.

by Guest Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:39 pm

Fuzzy Zack wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Yes which you offer only a partial solution to, where again you seem to think this is only about sexual abuse
That is why your views fall apart, its only looking to help one group for a particular problem where if you have guards within a carriage all who feel vunerable can sit within that carriage. I suggest you rethink because you only want to help some people where my view is to help all. Again what about disabled? Elderly men? Fathers with children? Its not just about sexual problems as you naively think.

Wasn't Corbyn talking about sexual abuse? It is you who has widened the goal posts.

And do you really expect the Police to be able to investigate an accidental grope. The perpetrator can easily deny it as an accident.

And all you have done is delayed the rest of us during the stoppage and investigation. That is logistically impractical.

1) Yes he was, but it falls short of dealing with the whole problem of saftey for all people which is important and not just one group, the point you still keep missing.

2) Absurd beyond belief, where you speak in hindsight. Where a woman will have clearly felt she has been groped, then it is common sense to investigate, by taking details of those involved and to then view the CCTV later to either confirm the woman has been groped and press charges or prove she has not been groped proving the persons innocence. Are you telling me the guard is going to know it was accidental if they have not seen the incident and just disbelieve the woman? Would you not rather the matter is cl;eared up by the very people who are authorized to investigate?

3) Too right I would back stopping the train like any rational person would when there is a possibility of a crime being committed.

by eddie Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:51 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
feelthelove wrote:
eddie wrote:Sorry I think it's bloody stupid.

What about black only carriages so no one suffers racial harassment? What about gay only carriages so men don't sexually harass other men?

We are just going backwards!!

Agreed Eddie

This makes no sense, ALL passengers deserve to be able to use public transport safely.

Agree with you both, it should be safety for all and that extra measures are put in place that help provide safety for all.

Yep and once you segregate one group of people it'll be done for others and before you know it, we will all be in our own little compartments!!

Plus, women have to walk alone at night....shall we say men can't go out after dark?? Rolling Eyes

Ridiculous.

by eddie Wed Aug 26, 2015 6:54 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Fuzzy Zack wrote:Yvette Cooper is vile and utterly disingenuous - and her comments today just prove how low she'll go

This is not about segregation - this is about choice. Whether some women will feel comfortable in a woman only carriage. Perhaps even with a guard/person inside the carriage.

Women who feel more secure can still use the other carriages.

That is a very sexiest view, as what about men that do not feel safe, are they just left to defend for themselves?
Again I am all for protecting women, but also men, Transgenders etc. Not everyone feeels safe on the trains and tubes at night do they.
So would not placing guards on trains be best to make all groups feel comfortable?
All should feel comfortable/safe and all this does is bring about inequality.

I absolutely agree. This is about making ALL modes of transport, for ALL people, safer.
They should never have gotten rid of tube and train workers that sit at stations. Some of the stations I get off there is no one there at all!

by Sponsored content