Thai man condemned for using free cafe WiFi to watch porn - video

[Nick Carter icp]

26 minutes ago, ikke1959 said:

porn Illegal in the land of sex?? Oh yes I forgot as long as the envelopes ar being given nobody sees or knows anything. Never heard of privacy? It is no concern what he is watching on his cellphone as long as only watch it by himself. Nobody needs to look what another is doing on or with his phone. Or would you like that that people comment if you talk in public with your gig on messenger?

 

   It is indecent to show porn in public areas , its not  only indecent but its against the law .

[Cameroni]

As a percentage, 95.9% of men watch pornography and 59.1% of women.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-percentage-of-people-who-watch-do-not-watch-pornography-n-358_tbl2_327842228

 

This guy is not in the clean 4%, he should face the consequences of flouting society's norms...no wait...

Edited September 10 by Cameroni

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, malibukid said:

how do you conflate sexual harassment with staring? shows you just how uptight todays young are. so

 woke. snowflakes with no or little self-esteem. i blame social media, it has crippled a whole generation..

 

You have demonstrated both a misunderstanding of the law and have infused your argument with your own misogyny for good measure.

 

Women have endured inappropriate behavior for decades - the kind of behavior you fail to recognise as sexual harassment, instead normalising it.

 

This is exactly why laws need to exist - because some people, perhaps those such as yourself, either refuse or are unable to acknowledge the seriousness of these issues.

 

 

In fact, under UK law, staring at someone in a manner that makes them feel intimidated or uncomfortable can be considered sexual harassment.

 

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from unwanted behavior that violates their dignity or creates a hostile environment, underscoring the need for legal safeguards - you accuse these individuals as being 'snowflakes with no or little self-esteem' - I'd suggest the saying 'walk a mile in their shoes' is appropriate here.

 

Furthermore, if you believe this generation is a) weakened and b) hindered due to decency regulations, then the conflation of issues is entirely your own.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, SportRider said:

The guy sounds a bit creepy, for sure, but the fuss seems full of indignant self-righteousness. 

 

Why ??...  It was her business and her customers that were being made to feel uncomfortable. 

 

Is a person wrong to protect the interests and safety of their customers ???

 

 

 

Edited September 10 by richard_smith237

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, malibukid said:

they stare at me all the time so i stare back..its called eye contact.

 

I think there is a line, which when crossed creates a situation which me be considered awkward at best and sexual harassment at worst.

 

If someone considers themselves a decent human being, do they really need to be taught where that line is ?... 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You have demonstrated both a misunderstanding of the law and have infused your argument with your own misogyny for good measure.

 

Women have endured inappropriate behavior for decades - the kind of behavior you fail to recognise as sexual harassment, instead normalising it.

 

This is exactly why laws need to exist - because some people, perhaps those such as yourself, either refuse or are unable to acknowledge the seriousness of these issues.

 

 

In fact, under UK law, staring at someone in a manner that makes them feel intimidated or uncomfortable can be considered sexual harassment.

 

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from unwanted behavior that violates their dignity or creates a hostile environment, underscoring the need for legal safeguards - you accuse these individuals as being 'snowflakes with no or little self-esteem' - I'd suggest the saying 'walk a mile in their shoes' is appropriate here.

 

Furthermore, if you believe this generation is a) weakened and b) hindered due to decency regulations, then the conflation of issues is entirely your own.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, it's a serious issue when a man looks at a woman and highly inappropriate.

 

Especially when the guy is not good looking.

 

The funny thing is you're absolutely right. Even among males, if a male stares at another man and causes the latter to feel threatened, to the letter of the law that could be threatening behaviour and thus common assualt.

 

In the UK, recently a man was put away for 22 weeks in prison for staring at a woman. No joke.

 

"Just last month a man was sentenced to 22 weeks in prison after a woman reported him for "continuously staring" at her on a train in Berkshire.

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/staring-on-tube-unhealthy-sexual-behaviour/

 

So this is where we've come to, just by looking at a woman she can get you thrown in prison. Starer beware. Richard, as always, is right.

 

 

Edited September 10 by Cameroni

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

porn Illegal in the land of sex?? Oh yes I forgot as long as the envelopes ar being given nobody sees or knows anything. Never heard of privacy? It is no concern what he is watching on his cellphone as long as only watch it by himself. Nobody needs to look what another is doing on or with his phone. Or would you like that that people comment if you talk in public with your gig on messenger?

 

There are clearly boundaries for public behavior.

 

He was leering at girls and watching porn.

 

IF you were in a cafe or on the BTS with your Wife and Child - and a guy sat opposite was watching porn and leering at your Wife or Child and making them feel extremely uncomfortable.....

- Would you honour your idea of their right to privacy ????

- Would it be 'no concern of yours' ????  

 

 

[n00dle]

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, I missed that before. A female owner- explains all.

 

good god you have become a festival of cringe as time passes. 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

So this is where we've come to, just by looking at a woman she can get you thrown in prison. Starer beware. Richard, as always, is right.

 

Definitely 'starer beware'...    Its common decency not to stare...

 

There is a difference between a momentary glance that many of us males find unavoidable vs staring and making the other party feel extremely vulnerable and uncomfortable to the extent that legal proceedings are taken.

 

The law clearly deals with the latter, though I do agree with your implied sentiment that dangerous precedent is being set when someone can go to prison for staring.

 

There needs to be safeguards in place for both the victims of such harassment, but also to ensure those safeguards are not abused. 

 

 

 

From your link: 

Quote

....  he sat next to the victim on the train and began staring at her "very intently".

The victim asked Bullock to stop staring several times as it was making her feel uncomfortable, but he refused.

That wasn't a casual glance at an attractive female. 

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

The law clearly deals with the latter, though I do agree with your implied sentiment that dangerous precedent is being set when someone can go to prison for staring.

 

This is what could in theory concern someone, if a woman accuses a man of staring, how, can a man defend himself? Since there was no actual harm caused that would serve as evidence, it would be a he said/she said scenario.

 

Okay, in the underground if a camera caught it, there would be evidence. However, in a social setting the woman would just need 2 friends to corroborate her claim and the man has almost no chance to be acquitted.

 

Maybe sunglasses at all times? Your honour, I was wearing sunglasses, it's a misunderstanding.

 

Thankfully, most women are decent and like to be looked at, if it's done in a tasteful way by a good looking strapping handsome man, so I don't have this problem, it's for other posters on this forum I would be quite concerned.

[harryviking]

If he do not order anything, then ask him to leave! Easy! Why make a story out of this! Throw him out!

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Cameroni said:

This is what could in theory concern someone, if a woman accuses a man of staring, how, can a man defend himself? Since there was no actual harm caused that would serve as evidence, it would be a he said/she said scenario.

 

I'm guessing (as pointed out below) that in such cases there would be video evidence and witness statements.

 

In the examples provided (London Transport) - there is CCTV (on busses, on the tube etc).

 

Just now, Cameroni said:

Okay, in the underground if a camera caught it, there would be evidence. However, in a social setting the woman would just need 2 friends to corroborate her claim and the man has almost no chance to be acquitted.

 

I'm not sure that would be sufficient, also, how prolonged and antisocial does the behavior (staring / leering) need to be before a female finds it uncomfortable ?

A split second glance...    normal human interaction.

An hour of prolonged leering... not a normal human interaction.

 

The line is somewhere in there and I'd suggest that a gaze held for longer than a few sections is already uncomfortable and most parties would naturally do the decent thing and look away.

 

 

Your comment also brings to surface the possibility of a 'set-up' or a neurotic female over-reacting and falsely accusing a male of staring - I think this is where there would need to be CCTV evidence to corroborate witness statements - most public places (in cities in the UK at least) have CCTV these days.

 

 

Just now, Cameroni said:

Maybe sunglasses at all times? Your honour, I was wearing sunglasses, it's a misunderstanding.

 

If you are finding ways to mask your lecherous behaviour - sure, wear sunglasses underground on the MRT... 

 

Though - you do make a point, how can someone tell if you are staring at them in a lecherous / leering manner or simply lost in thought with a 1000 yard stare.

 

I think in the example of this story, when combined with watching porn and the owners statements / observations, this behavior was antisocial. 

 

Just now, Cameroni said:

Thankfully, most women are decent and like to be looked at, if it's done in a tasteful way by a good looking strapping handsome man, so I don't have this problem, it's for other posters on this forum I would be quite concerned.

 

Haha - Agreed... there is an element of  'handsome man looks at a woman she likes, it, ugly man behaves the same she doesn't'........    

 

But.. if the look is for a micro-second.... surely its no big deal, I catch eye contact with people all the time...   staring at them for 1 minute or more etc is just weird. 

 

 

[ikke1959]

2 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   It is indecent to show porn in public areas , its not  only indecent but its against the law .

He did not show it, he was watching it

 

[jippytum]

7 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

What legal action can she take anyway? There is no law about looking at a woman? Nor is there any law about using free wifi. 

Agreed..... However discretion in public is common sense. 

[Irish star]

19 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Harassed is it? Was he licking his eyebrows while "staring"? Seems LOS is going western full wokeness. He might just think they are pretty, but in the fevered minds of the easily offended he was imagining naughty things. If they didn't like it they should have just complained to the manager, and personally accosting him was dumb, IMO.

Anyway, if he's sitting looking at the vegetation were the females lurking in the undergrowth for him to stare at them? Sounds to me he just looked at them on the way in, as most men will.

 

I don't care what he watched, most on the internet is rubbish anyway, but he's stupid for sitting where people can see what he is looking at.

 

Of course he was wrong for not buying anything- it's a business, not a charity for lonely old men, but that could have easily been dealt with politely by the manager.

If I hear the Word WOKE, I ignore the poster this is TrumpFlake talking points aka DaSatan 

[smew]

wifi signal propagates beyond cafe boundaries... so it is fee for all.. what he watches is his choice...

harassing people no good will get him in trouble sooner or later   

[Cameroni]

58 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm guessing (as pointed out below) that in such cases there would be video evidence and witness statements.

 

In the examples provided (London Transport) - there is CCTV (on busses, on the tube etc).

 

 

I'm not sure that would be sufficient, also, how prolonged and antisocial does the behavior (staring / leering) need to be before a female finds it uncomfortable ?

A split second glance...    normal human interaction.

An hour of prolonged leering... not a normal human interaction.

 

The line is somewhere in there and I'd suggest that a gaze held for longer than a few sections is already uncomfortable and most parties would naturally do the decent thing and look away.

 

 

Your comment also brings to surface the possibility of a 'set-up' or a neurotic female over-reacting and falsely accusing a male of staring - I think this is where there would need to be CCTV evidence to corroborate witness statements - most public places (in cities in the UK at least) have CCTV these days.

 

 

 

If you are finding ways to mask your lecherous behaviour - sure, wear sunglasses underground on the MRT... 

 

Though - you do make a point, how can someone tell if you are staring at them in a lecherous / leering manner or simply lost in thought with a 1000 yard stare.

 

I think in the example of this story, when combined with watching porn and the owners statements / observations, this behavior was antisocial. 

 

 

Haha - Agreed... there is an element of  'handsome man looks at a woman she likes, it, ugly man behaves the same she doesn't'........    

 

But.. if the look is for a micro-second.... surely its no big deal, I catch eye contact with people all the time...   staring at them for 1 minute or more etc is just weird. 

 

 

 

Personally, I think we went down a slippery slope when we started to criminalise behaviour that does not cause actual harm. Like I said, it has been this way for a long time, even among males a prolonged stare could be construed as "threatening behaviour" and thus technically common assault.

 

However, this guy in Berkshire, if he spent half a year in prison for looking at this woman, he is sure to come out hating women even more. He had issues to start with most likely, but incarceration for looking, he's bound to feel aggrieved and may come out worse than before.

 

You're right of course that it would be very rare for a woman to invoke this law about staring, I was thinking more about the second scenario you mention, if someone maliciously wanted to bring a prosecution  then it would be an evidential matter. If she can bring 2 or 4 friends who give witness statements it would be impossible for the man to prove he's innocent and the look never happened or was of "normal" duration.

 

But it is fairly academic, neither of the above cases would happen a lot. With this Thai man, if he had looked at my family I may have started feeling uncomfortable, sure, was it antisocial, sure. But should he spend half a year in prison? I would say no. If no actual harm was done, I find hard to justify depriving anyone of liberty and proceed to a custodial sentence, if he did not cause actual harm.

 

I know there are good arguments for ciriminal offences where no harm is done, the shouting fire in a crowded cinema argument, but it really is a slippery slope.

 

It's a good thing most women are unware how easy it is to get a man thrown in prison.

Edited September 10 by Cameroni

[Nick Carter icp]

1 hour ago, ikke1959 said:

He did not show it, he was watching it

 

 

   If you are watching it in public, then you are showing it in public 

[Travis179]

7 hours ago, Cory1848 said:

Are you a woman? As a woman, have you ever been stared at by a man in a public place? Didn’t think so. I’m not a woman either, therefore I’m willing to listen to a woman if she says she’s been made to feel uncomfortable or threatened, and I’ll take her word for it. Myself not having a clue what it’s like being a woman. Meantime, please take your indignation and faux “male privilege” elsewhere.

Soy alert! Man card revoked! 😂

[richard_smith237]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Personally, I think we went down a slippery slope when we started to criminalise behaviour that does not cause actual harm. Like I said, it has been this way for a long time, even among males a prolonged stare could be construed as "threatening behaviour" and thus technically common assault.

 

All legal slopes are somewhat slippery when it comes to criminalisation, thats why the legal system often so complex - however, what would you consider of phycological harm ?

... women, even people feeling petrified ?...    people need to be protected and thats the measure of a civilised society.

 

And no - the law differentiates between harassment and assault. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

However, this guy in Berkshire, if he spent half a year in prison for looking at this woman, he is sure to come out hating women even more. He had issues to start with most likely, but incarceration for looking, he's bound to feel aggrieved and may come out worse than before.

 

Possibly, but should someone remain 'un-punished' because they may become worse due to the punishment ??...    they're already a 'wrong-un' if they are behaving in such a manner to cause prolonged discomfort that it is considered harassment - thus, there needs to be some detergent if such examples are common place -

 

Note: A survey carried out by the British Transport Police recorded that 33% of females have endured 'sexual harassment' while travelling on the Train or the Tube.

 

Thus: 'looking' is the thin end of the wedge... Also, this is not just 'looking' but leering, being lecherous, staring in such a manner for such a duration that the other party is made to feel uncomfortable and unsafe. 

 

People who behave in such an antisocial manner need to be dealt with - if not, there exists a risk of escalation. 

 

Though, as mentioned earlier - safeguards need to be put in place to limit false accusations. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You're right of course that it would be very rare for a woman to invoke this law about staring, I was thinking more about the second scenario you mention, if someone maliciously wanted to bring a prosecution  then it would be an evidential matter. If she can bring 2 or 4 friends who give witness statements it would be impossible for the man to prove he's innocent and the look never happened or was of "normal" duration.

 

In such examples there is also a risk of perjury and potentially causing a miscarriage of justice which also has serious consequences.

I suspect there would need to be more evidence than 'just witness statements' of friends which may well involve bias. 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

But it is fairly academic, neither of the above cases would happen a lot. With this Thai man, if he had looked at my family I may have started feeling uncomfortable, sure, was it antisocial, sure. But should he spend half a year in prison? I would say no. If no actual harm was done, I find hard to justify depriving anyone of liberty and proceed to a custodial sentence, if he did not cause actual harm.

 

I tend to agree...      Though, we (the public and on this forum) are also very quick to condemn authorities when they do nothing proactive as a preventative measure. 

 

Its an impossible metric to measure - but could this publicity have prevented the guy from committing sexual assault ?

 

A prison sentence is incredibly extreme - but that also depends on the seriousness, extent and duration of the behavior - I don't think action should rely on actual harm there are assault charges for that, harassment is a more minor offence but still causes psychological harm. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I know there are good arguments for ciriminal offences where no harm is done, the shouting fire in a crowded cinema argument, but it really is a slippery slope.

 

Agree, nevertheless legislation needs to be in place for the greater good of society - in this case, those less able to protect themselves need protection by the law. 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

It's a good thing most women are unware how easy it is to get a man thrown in prison.

 

Is it that easy ???   There are of course very public and extreme circumstances of unfair accusation and sentencing... but there are also public and extreme circumstances of false accusation and the accuser is charged (example: Eleanor Williams jailed for 8.5 years for her wrongful accusations).

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

11 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

   If you are watching it in public, then you are showing it in public 

 

And if you are watching it [porn] in public and staring at females to such a degree they / someone is made uncomfortable or threatened - then there is an issue which needs to be dealt with.

 

Its possible this cafe owner prevented a sexual assault. 

 

Its possible this cafe owner over reacted - but then, if I opened a video on the BTS and it was pornographic, I'd close it straight away....   

In fact I don't open messages from 'some message groups' in public because of the possibility of such content. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

50 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

All legal slopes are somewhat slippery when it comes to criminalisation, thats why the legal system often so complex - however, what would you consider of phycological harm ?

... women, even people feeling petrified ?...    people need to be protected and thats the measure of a civilised society.

 

And no - the law differentiates between harassment and assault. 

 

 

 

Possibly, but should someone remain 'un-punished' because they may become worse due to the punishment ??...    they're already a 'wrong-un' if they are behaving in such a manner to cause prolonged discomfort that it is considered harassment - thus, there needs to be some detergent if such examples are common place -

 

Note: A survey carried out by the British Transport Police recorded that 33% of females have endured 'sexual harassment' while travelling on the Train or the Tube.

 

Thus: 'looking' is the thin end of the wedge... Also, this is not just 'looking' but leering, being lecherous, staring in such a manner for such a duration that the other party is made to feel uncomfortable and unsafe. 

 

People who behave in such an antisocial manner need to be dealt with - if not, there exists a risk of escalation. 

 

Though, as mentioned earlier - safeguards need to be put in place to limit false accusations. 

 

 

 

In such examples there is also a risk of perjury and potentially causing a miscarriage of justice which also has serious consequences.

I suspect there would need to be more evidence than 'just witness statements' of friends which may well involve bias. 

 

 

 

 

I tend to agree...      Though, we (the public and on this forum) are also very quick to condemn authorities when they do nothing proactive as a preventative measure. 

 

Its an impossible metric to measure - but could this publicity have prevented the guy from committing sexual assault ?

 

A prison sentence is incredibly extreme - but that also depends on the seriousness, extent and duration of the behavior - I don't think action should rely on actual harm there are assault charges for that, harassment is a more minor offence but still causes psychological harm. 

 

 

 

Agree, nevertheless legislation needs to be in place for the greater good of society - in this case, those less able to protect themselves need protection by the law. 

 

 

Is it that easy ???   There are of course very public and extreme circumstances of unfair accusation and sentencing... but there are also public and extreme circumstances of false accusation and the accuser is charged (example: Eleanor Williams jailed for 8.5 years for her wrongful accusations).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, indeed, the laws are incredibly complex. If the laws were clear we would not need lawyers to interpret them. And I do appreciate the difficulty of drafting laws, where you have to anticipate all the things that could happen. It almost seemed to me at times as if the law criminalises as much as possible just in order to control the populace, but it's not that, it's a case of those drafting the laws having to cover all the potential things that could happen. And a lot does and can happen.

 

You can see it in the common assault principle that anticipating threatening behaviour can lead to common assault even without actual touching of the other person, and this is true, in real life people can feel so threatened by looks, words, etc that they lash out to throw a pre-emptive strike as it were. Clearly this defence had to be made available as there were real life instances of this. The sophistication of criminal law is quite high looked at it this way, and once harrassment was brought in you can see this became ever more creative. But these are real things, a look can be highly threatening, even a silverback gorilla will not tolerate it. In a way harrasment laws have made women into silver back gorillas now, albeit with the force of the law, rather than physical force, which is arguably even more terrifying.

 

Psychological harm is of course a real thing, in certain circumstances. For instance a woman who had an intruder in her house often reports for years feeling unsafe, which is understandable. So here psychological harm is a real thing. It clearly does exist. But again, this is a massive greasy slippery slope, as we saw in the repressed memory cases, where psychologists suposedly unlocked psychological harm that was repressed for years. Many were convicted and it took years before this practice was no longer accepted, freeing up repressed memories of psychological harm. In the end, most people who have undergone truly traumatic things tend to process them and function normally afterwards. However, this can take time and true psychological acument to determine, if there was harm. A very dangerous thing when psychological harm gets introduced. But clearly, it can be real.

 

Indeed, harrassment and assault are seperate offences, but the point I was making is that for assault originally it was accepted that threatening behaviour, looks, words etc could be construed as assault. And one can see how this notion is also taken up with the harrasment laws, where staring can be an offence.

 

I wonder if we're getting too precious and too sophisticated when it comes to offences where no harm is caused, but I suppose a woman in a lonely train carriage might disagree. This whole matter of harrasment in trains is no doubt true, and yet women went through this 50 years ago and the world continued revolving. Are we not making more problems for gender relations by overcriminalising things like staring? What safeguards could you put in palce to limit false accounts? I can't think of anything.

 

The Eleanor Williams case shows how devastating false accusations can be, the three men she falsely accused all said they had tried to commit suicide. Another had his business ruined due to the reputational damage Williams caused. So yes, women need to be protected from harrasment, but if laws meant to protect women are used in a fraudulent way leading to men attempting suicide, having their business ruined, there has to be a balance struck between protection from harrasment and false accusations. This is the problem, I don't see what safeguards you can put in place, it is all based on evidence in court. By their nature people like Williams will not care about perjury and will fabricate evidence. In the famous case of Donald Trump, a woman came up with an accusation decades ago, and got some friends to provide witness statements about an event nobody had witnessed. Even the former president was then convicted of sexual asssault on the basis of these witness statement..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10 by Cameroni

[flexomike]

20 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

As porn is forbidden in Thailand, you can't have access to "youporn" and similar websites.

So it's quite obvious he didn't watch porn.

All rubbish👍

never heard of a vpn

[newbee2022]

10 minutes ago, flexomike said:

never heard of a vpn

And your point is...??

[soi3eddie]

On 9/9/2024 at 11:03 AM, snoop1130 said:

The owner later revealed to Channel 7 that the man not only watched porn in the cafe but also sexually harassed female customers by staring at them.

 

When does looking become staring? A quick glance? A few seconds? A minute? Sorry that the lady felt harrassed. Lucky for the guy, he wasn't in London. He'd be locked up immediately!

 

[bristolgeoff]

I thought that was impossible they watch all internet sites.But if u use a vpn  then  possible.I think the provider told the cafe owner too but he does offer free wifi to all

[Mason45]

On 9/9/2024 at 5:32 PM, ikke1959 said:

What is the problem? A bar is free an if they give free internet it is up to them. That the man did not spend anything should be told by the man in charge that consumptions are obliged or leave. But he did not do that. Policy should be changed, but you can't control what people ae doing on their cellphone

So university students and children don't watch free porn online. If he had've bought a coffee or even a coke that would've have made it acceptable.

[Ralf001]

is it legal for them to publish publicly video of this man without I assume his permission ?

[malibukid]

On 9/10/2024 at 12:37 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

You have demonstrated both a misunderstanding of the law and have infused your argument with your own misogyny for good measure.

 

Women have endured inappropriate behavior for decades - the kind of behavior you fail to recognise as sexual harassment, instead normalising it.

 

This is exactly why laws need to exist - because some people, perhaps those such as yourself, either refuse or are unable to acknowledge the seriousness of these issues.

 

 

In fact, under UK law, staring at someone in a manner that makes them feel intimidated or uncomfortable can be considered sexual harassment.

 

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from unwanted behavior that violates their dignity or creates a hostile environment, underscoring the need for legal safeguards - you accuse these individuals as being 'snowflakes with no or little self-esteem' - I'd suggest the saying 'walk a mile in their shoes' is appropriate here.

 

Furthermore, if you believe this generation is a) weakened and b) hindered due to decency regulations, then the conflation of issues is entirely your own.

 

 

 

 

woman dress provocatively to attract attention therefor  bringing it upon themselves.  they do this for a reason to attract mates sometimes unwittingly. sex sells, its as simple as that. have you ever been to the beach or out at the clubs?

Edited Thursday at 05:26 AM by malibukid