Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Masterchef
Comments
-
A woman should be able to wear what she likes without attracting lewd comments, though I doubt the policewoman would wear anything that is likely to jeopardise any prosecution.eaststandmike said:
This will need to be carefully considered, for example how will the police woman be dressed because you say she will be walking along just like any other woman however if she is done up to the nines especially on a winter’s day I would say entrapment could come into playME14addick said:
I don't see how it is entrapment, the policewoman will be walking along a street just like any other woman. If a man in a car chooses to shout lewd or abusive comments, the that is on them.Arsenetatters said:
Wow. I’m quite shocked by this. I feel it’s entrapment too tbh.ME14addick said:Recently a new initiative by Kent Police was posted on a local Facebook page. The plan is for a plain clothed Police woman to walk along the streets and if she is subjected to lewd and abusive language, by men passing by in a vehicle, she will radio to colleagues, who will apprehend and charge the occupants. I was amazed at the number of men who thought this was entrapment, even when it was pointed out that if they didn't indulge in unacceptable behaviour, then they would face no action. The post was met with the usual comments of 'woke' and 'banter'.
Sadly, in 2024, there are many men who think it acceptable to abuse women and girls and pass it off as banter.
I saw a piece on tv the other week, where a woman who goes out jogging is subjected to comments from men she does not know, on almost a daily basis. That can't be right.6 -
Yes I get all that but as I said, what will be considered as plain clothes. Let’s wait and seeChizz said:eaststandmike said:
This will need to be carefully considered, for example how will the police woman be dressed because you say she will be walking along just like any other woman however if she is done up to the nines especially on a winter’s day I would say entrapment could come into playME14addick said:
I don't see how it is entrapment, the policewoman will be walking along a street just like any other woman. If a man in a car chooses to shout lewd or abusive comments, the that is on them.Arsenetatters said:
Wow. I’m quite shocked by this. I feel it’s entrapment too tbh.ME14addick said:Recently a new initiative by Kent Police was posted on a local Facebook page. The plan is for a plain clothed Police woman to walk along the streets and if she is subjected to lewd and abusive language, by men passing by in a vehicle, she will radio to colleagues, who will apprehend and charge the occupants. I was amazed at the number of men who thought this was entrapment, even when it was pointed out that if they didn't indulge in unacceptable behaviour, then they would face no action. The post was met with the usual comments of 'woke' and 'banter'.
Sadly, in 2024, there are many men who think it acceptable to abuse women and girls and pass it off as banter.
I saw a piece on tv the other week, where a woman who goes out jogging is subjected to comments from men she does not know, on almost a daily basis. That can't be right.The initiative by Kent Police does not meet the legal definition of entrapment.
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces or coerces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The key element of entrapment is that the person was not predisposed to commit the offence but was persuaded or pressured into doing so by law enforcement.
In the case of the policewoman walking in plain clothes, she is not encouraging, inciting, or pressuring anyone to engage in lewd or abusive behaviour. Instead, she is acting as a passive observer, creating an opportunity to detect and respond to unlawful behaviour that individuals choose to commit on their own. If someone makes the choice to direct inappropriate comments at her, they are engaging in behaviour they would likely have done regardless of the officer's presence.
Ultimately, the initiative is about enforcing existing laws and protecting individuals from abusive behaviour, not coercing anyone into unlawful acts.
If it works, and it results in men being prosecuted, then good. And if men in Kent think they might fall foul of what they consider (wrongly) to be entrapment and decide to counter this by changing their behaviour, then very good.
1 -
In view of the fact Mel Sykes got done for common assault on her husband, I would have thought she could have dealt with any innuendos GW threw at her.
She certainly wasn’t afraid of a Cocking1 -
As a father of a daughter, any initiative to stop dirty men approaching women in the street gets my approval.
The problem is the justice system is absolutely fucked as per my comment the annoy you thread - https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/24728062.creep-groped-girl-abbey-wood-station-avoids-prison/
It’s forgivable if it’s the first time you’re caught apparently.11 -
Is it your view that the clothing worn by a woman could coerce someone into committing a crime they wouldn't otherwise have committed? I do hope not.eaststandmike said:
Yes I get all that but as I said, what will be considered as plain clothes. Let’s wait and seeChizz said:eaststandmike said:
This will need to be carefully considered, for example how will the police woman be dressed because you say she will be walking along just like any other woman however if she is done up to the nines especially on a winter’s day I would say entrapment could come into playME14addick said:
I don't see how it is entrapment, the policewoman will be walking along a street just like any other woman. If a man in a car chooses to shout lewd or abusive comments, the that is on them.Arsenetatters said:
Wow. I’m quite shocked by this. I feel it’s entrapment too tbh.ME14addick said:Recently a new initiative by Kent Police was posted on a local Facebook page. The plan is for a plain clothed Police woman to walk along the streets and if she is subjected to lewd and abusive language, by men passing by in a vehicle, she will radio to colleagues, who will apprehend and charge the occupants. I was amazed at the number of men who thought this was entrapment, even when it was pointed out that if they didn't indulge in unacceptable behaviour, then they would face no action. The post was met with the usual comments of 'woke' and 'banter'.
Sadly, in 2024, there are many men who think it acceptable to abuse women and girls and pass it off as banter.
I saw a piece on tv the other week, where a woman who goes out jogging is subjected to comments from men she does not know, on almost a daily basis. That can't be right.The initiative by Kent Police does not meet the legal definition of entrapment.
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces or coerces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The key element of entrapment is that the person was not predisposed to commit the offence but was persuaded or pressured into doing so by law enforcement.
In the case of the policewoman walking in plain clothes, she is not encouraging, inciting, or pressuring anyone to engage in lewd or abusive behaviour. Instead, she is acting as a passive observer, creating an opportunity to detect and respond to unlawful behaviour that individuals choose to commit on their own. If someone makes the choice to direct inappropriate comments at her, they are engaging in behaviour they would likely have done regardless of the officer's presence.
Ultimately, the initiative is about enforcing existing laws and protecting individuals from abusive behaviour, not coercing anyone into unlawful acts.
If it works, and it results in men being prosecuted, then good. And if men in Kent think they might fall foul of what they consider (wrongly) to be entrapment and decide to counter this by changing their behaviour, then very good.
6 -
What are you anticipating, her dressing up like Vicki Michelle in Allo', Allo???eaststandmike said:
Yes I get all that but as I said, what will be considered as plain clothes. Let’s wait and seeChizz said:eaststandmike said:
This will need to be carefully considered, for example how will the police woman be dressed because you say she will be walking along just like any other woman however if she is done up to the nines especially on a winter’s day I would say entrapment could come into playME14addick said:
I don't see how it is entrapment, the policewoman will be walking along a street just like any other woman. If a man in a car chooses to shout lewd or abusive comments, the that is on them.Arsenetatters said:
Wow. I’m quite shocked by this. I feel it’s entrapment too tbh.ME14addick said:Recently a new initiative by Kent Police was posted on a local Facebook page. The plan is for a plain clothed Police woman to walk along the streets and if she is subjected to lewd and abusive language, by men passing by in a vehicle, she will radio to colleagues, who will apprehend and charge the occupants. I was amazed at the number of men who thought this was entrapment, even when it was pointed out that if they didn't indulge in unacceptable behaviour, then they would face no action. The post was met with the usual comments of 'woke' and 'banter'.
Sadly, in 2024, there are many men who think it acceptable to abuse women and girls and pass it off as banter.
I saw a piece on tv the other week, where a woman who goes out jogging is subjected to comments from men she does not know, on almost a daily basis. That can't be right.The initiative by Kent Police does not meet the legal definition of entrapment.
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces or coerces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The key element of entrapment is that the person was not predisposed to commit the offence but was persuaded or pressured into doing so by law enforcement.
In the case of the policewoman walking in plain clothes, she is not encouraging, inciting, or pressuring anyone to engage in lewd or abusive behaviour. Instead, she is acting as a passive observer, creating an opportunity to detect and respond to unlawful behaviour that individuals choose to commit on their own. If someone makes the choice to direct inappropriate comments at her, they are engaging in behaviour they would likely have done regardless of the officer's presence.
Ultimately, the initiative is about enforcing existing laws and protecting individuals from abusive behaviour, not coercing anyone into unlawful acts.
If it works, and it results in men being prosecuted, then good. And if men in Kent think they might fall foul of what they consider (wrongly) to be entrapment and decide to counter this by changing their behaviour, then very good.
There is no defence of entrapment in UK law. None.
It could be argued that there has been an abuse of process on the grounds that the offender has been coerced into committing a course of conduct they wouldn't otherwise do. But shouting lewd comments from a passing vehicle wouldn't fly, no matter how she was dressed.
That's aside from the point made further up that women should be able wear whatever they effing want, without it being used as an excuse for neanderthals to share what passes for their thoughts or wit at them.5 -
As long as there is a clearly defined set of criteria as to what is "lewd" or "abusive"...Chizz said:eaststandmike said:
This will need to be carefully considered, for example how will the police woman be dressed because you say she will be walking along just like any other woman however if she is done up to the nines especially on a winter’s day I would say entrapment could come into playME14addick said:
I don't see how it is entrapment, the policewoman will be walking along a street just like any other woman. If a man in a car chooses to shout lewd or abusive comments, the that is on them.Arsenetatters said:
Wow. I’m quite shocked by this. I feel it’s entrapment too tbh.ME14addick said:Recently a new initiative by Kent Police was posted on a local Facebook page. The plan is for a plain clothed Police woman to walk along the streets and if she is subjected to lewd and abusive language, by men passing by in a vehicle, she will radio to colleagues, who will apprehend and charge the occupants. I was amazed at the number of men who thought this was entrapment, even when it was pointed out that if they didn't indulge in unacceptable behaviour, then they would face no action. The post was met with the usual comments of 'woke' and 'banter'.
Sadly, in 2024, there are many men who think it acceptable to abuse women and girls and pass it off as banter.
I saw a piece on tv the other week, where a woman who goes out jogging is subjected to comments from men she does not know, on almost a daily basis. That can't be right.The initiative by Kent Police does not meet the legal definition of entrapment.
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces or coerces someone to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. The key element of entrapment is that the person was not predisposed to commit the offence but was persuaded or pressured into doing so by law enforcement.
In the case of the policewoman walking in plain clothes, she is not encouraging, inciting, or pressuring anyone to engage in lewd or abusive behaviour. Instead, she is acting as a passive observer, creating an opportunity to detect and respond to unlawful behaviour that individuals choose to commit on their own. If someone makes the choice to direct inappropriate comments at her, they are engaging in behaviour they would likely have done regardless of the officer's presence.
Ultimately, the initiative is about enforcing existing laws and protecting individuals from abusive behaviour, not coercing anyone into unlawful acts.
If it works, and it results in men being prosecuted, then good. And if men in Kent think they might fall foul of what they consider (wrongly) to be entrapment and decide to counter this by changing their behaviour, then very good.
Is a wolf whistle lewd or abusive? I have no doubt many women would believe it is. I have no doubt many women would see it in a different context.
I point out here I am not a women, so the above is supposition - maybe I'm of a generation that believes this to be the case when it might not be?
For the avoidance of doubt, I have never said anything to a woman i don't know in the street (I'm a Charlton fan), let alone be lewd or abusive.0 -
The heckling thing is an odd one for me. I've chatted to women in traffic when I was single but beeping my horn at someone I didnt know wasn't for me, unless it involved driving past a group of people, hitting the horn and waving to guarantee at least one gumbo waves at this stranger. Wolf whistling isn't something I can do so that counts me out as well. However, my missus has said before it does wonders for her self confidence being wolf-whistled or tooted by a passing car, but she isn't easily intimidated and I'm laughing to myself visualising her dealing with some creep like Millwall gregg. A polite response would be "shut up, you div".
0 -
Yep my missus said this the other day. She was on her way to a job interview in the city years ago and got wolf whistles etc on the way there - confidence boosted. Similar to your missus, she is more than capable of dealing with any unwanted behaviour - wouldn't be as polite as "shut up you div" though!Carter said:The heckling thing is an odd one for me. I've chatted to women in traffic when I was single but beeping my horn at someone I didnt know wasn't for me, unless it involved driving past a group of people, hitting the horn and waving to guarantee at least one gumbo waves at this stranger. Wolf whistling isn't something I can do so that counts me out as well. However, my missus has said before it does wonders for her self confidence being wolf-whistled or tooted by a passing car, but she isn't easily intimidated and I'm laughing to myself visualising her dealing with some creep like Millwall gregg. A polite response would be "shut up, you div".1 -
isnt it about time we had some memes on this thread?...
5 - Sponsored links:
-
Anyone got a good recipe for shepherd pie..need it after watching that shit.0
-
Nothing ever changes with you does it Chipster? You still can't actually present any relevant points when attempting to make an argument.Chippycafc said:
Wonder where you've ben. Hangover from the other threads.. no sock big enough...you keep pretending to be angry and I will just carry on with the workshop bants thsts stood me well for all these years.Rizzo said:
Tell you what Chippy, why don't you turn up to your next meeting, preferably one involving younger women you've never met before, wearing nothing but a sock over your cock. I'm sure everyone will be fine with it. Just 'bants' yeah?Chippycafc said:
No it's used by people who are sick anf tired of idiots who have nothing better to do all day who find trivial things to pretend to be angry about.ME14addick said:
Woke, a very overused word these days, to justify behaviour which is no longer acceptable.Chippycafc said:Instead of watching masterchef tonight. Switch over to that's TV and see till death us do part, benidorm and benny hill show.
Enjoy the times when people could laugh and not take life too seriously.
This fake anger woke nonsense has got to stop.
ffs...
No doubt tomorrow domething else will come along to get mouthed about.
Or spell.
Or use the quote function.8 -
Trust me, you are.greenwichred68 said:
2021 she quit tv.She could of said something then.No il wait 3 years till 2024.Utter tosh.Wasnt there a rumour that she quit tv was because of Keith Lemmon? As for making an arse of myself na i dont think i am.KBslittlesis said:
Why don’t you believe her?greenwichred68 said:
No way did she quit tv due to what Gregg Wallace did. Utter BOLLOCKS.Chizz said:greenwichred68 said:
Another band wagon jumper on.What utter bloocks.Chizz said:Melanie Sykes has revealed she made an informal complaint about Gregg Wallace, saying that having to work with him on Celebrity MasterChef in 2021 was the reason why she quit TV. "I said I didn’t want to make a formal complaint because I’d spend all my time in litigation and I think that is one of the reasons why people don’t go for it."Her comments came as Vanessa Feltz claimed that Wallace had, on first meeting a friend of hers, described in a BBC lift a sex act he had performed.
Story
"Another band wagon jumper on". Is that where we are right now, as a society? One woman explains what happened to her and she's traduced by ill-informed members of the public seeking to diminish and reduce her story. Instead of being listened to and, yes, believed.
You obviously didn't bother to read the story linked in the post. Had you done so, you would have seen that Melanie Sykes' incident was published not today, not yesterday, but last year. So, how does that align with your suggestion that she's a "band wagon jumper on"? She published it in her autobiography. It's in print. And has been for some time.
More? OK. The post and the article explains that she didn't want to make a formal complaint because it would cost too much time in litigation. Is that what we want? Men acting however they want to, to denigrate, embarrass, harass and scare women, safe in the knowledge that their harmful actions won't be treated with seriousness and the complaints of the women will be ignored? In fact, worse than ignored: they will be criticised by people who are fact-free, but bigoted opinion heavy.
If you don't mind me saying - and, in fact, even if you do mind me saying - I think your comment does you no credit at all, is embarrassing and should be treated with disdain by men and women everywhere.
In short, I think what you have written is "utter bloocks".
You do realise who she is?
This tw@t was probably the straw that broke the camels back.
You're making yourself look like an arse quite frankly.4 -
Utterly pathetic. This forum reaches new lows.Chippycafc said:Anyone got a good recipe for shepherd pie..need it after watching that shit.2 -
And likewise the nazi grammar police in you ha'snt. I was on a train going to the match on my small screen phone.Rizzo said:
Nothing ever changes with you does it Chipster? You still can't actually present any relevant points when attempting to make an argument.Chippycafc said:
Wonder where you've ben. Hangover from the other threads.. no sock big enough...you keep pretending to be angry and I will just carry on with the workshop bants thsts stood me well for all these years.Rizzo said:
Tell you what Chippy, why don't you turn up to your next meeting, preferably one involving younger women you've never met before, wearing nothing but a sock over your cock. I'm sure everyone will be fine with it. Just 'bants' yeah?Chippycafc said:
No it's used by people who are sick anf tired of idiots who have nothing better to do all day who find trivial things to pretend to be angry about.ME14addick said:
Woke, a very overused word these days, to justify behaviour which is no longer acceptable.Chippycafc said:Instead of watching masterchef tonight. Switch over to that's TV and see till death us do part, benidorm and benny hill show.
Enjoy the times when people could laugh and not take life too seriously.
This fake anger woke nonsense has got to stop.
ffs...
No doubt tomorrow domething else will come along to get mouthed about.
Or spell.
Or use the quote function.
And made relevant points earlier unlike you who forever is playing tne man.
This ridiculous witch hunt on a man by some people who portray themselves whiter than white is pathetic. Including you.2 -
What relevant points?Chippycafc said:
And likewise the nazi grammar police in you ha'snt. I was on a train going to the match on my small screen phone.Rizzo said:
Nothing ever changes with you does it Chipster? You still can't actually present any relevant points when attempting to make an argument.Chippycafc said:
Wonder where you've ben. Hangover from the other threads.. no sock big enough...you keep pretending to be angry and I will just carry on with the workshop bants thsts stood me well for all these years.Rizzo said:
Tell you what Chippy, why don't you turn up to your next meeting, preferably one involving younger women you've never met before, wearing nothing but a sock over your cock. I'm sure everyone will be fine with it. Just 'bants' yeah?Chippycafc said:
No it's used by people who are sick anf tired of idiots who have nothing better to do all day who find trivial things to pretend to be angry about.ME14addick said:
Woke, a very overused word these days, to justify behaviour which is no longer acceptable.Chippycafc said:Instead of watching masterchef tonight. Switch over to that's TV and see till death us do part, benidorm and benny hill show.
Enjoy the times when people could laugh and not take life too seriously.
This fake anger woke nonsense has got to stop.
ffs...
No doubt tomorrow domething else will come along to get mouthed about.
Or spell.
Or use the quote function.
And made relevant points earlier unlike you who forever is playing tne man.
This ridiculous witch hunt on a man by some people who portray themselves whiter than white is pathetic. Including you.
I asked a perfectly reasonable question about whether you would be able to do one of the acts that Millwall Gregggggg has been accused of doing, and which you are so keen to defend, in your own workplace. Which we both know you absolutely wouldn't be able to get away with but of course you'd never admit it.
And in a debate about sexually inappropriate comments you felt it was a good idea to slip in a comment about the size of your cock. Says it all really!2 -
Gregg has upset a lot of people, especially the ladies it seems. A while back there was furore around remarks he (allegedly) made concerning the shape of some ladies during a filming of an 'Inside The Factory' episode, a programme I enjoyed except for Gregg's constant shouting and wide eyed put on amazement at every aspect of a manufacturing process0
-
In one respect @Chippycafc is right about moral high grounds.
Being a vegetarian I never watch the food shows on the television, but I do read Charlton Life, and in my opinion Charlton Life has quite a lot of the stuff Wallace is accused of, like in ‘Would you’, or Whose Rack’, or ‘New Bird on Countdown’ and in other places on this forum.
If people want Wallace to stop with the misogyny maybe we should stop the misogyny on Charlton Life.
I will be disagreed with by people saying I am too ‘woke’, and on Charlton Life it is just harmless banter of some kind, which is the position it seems Greg Wallace takes.
5 -
Perhaps the fact that those threads lie dormant most of the time these days is a positive and more encouraging sign of the times in that regard.seth plum said:In one respect @Chippycafc is right about moral high grounds.
Being a vegetarian I never watch the food shows on the television, but I do read Charlton Life, and in my opinion Charlton Life has quite a lot of the stuff Wallace is accused of, like in ‘Would you’, or Whose Rack’, or ‘New Bird on Countdown’ and in other places on this forum.
If people want Wallace to stop with the misogyny maybe we should stop the misogyny on Charlton Life.
I will be disagreed with by people saying I am too ‘woke’, and on Charlton Life it is just harmless banter of some kind, which is the position it seems Greg Wallace takes.
13 -
Gregg ?seth plum said:In one respect @Chippycafc is right about moral high grounds.
Being a vegetarian I never watch the food shows on the television, but I do read Charlton Life, and in my opinion Charlton Life has quite a lot of the stuff Wallace is accused of, like in ‘Would you’, or Whose Rack’, or ‘New Bird on Countdown’ and in other places on this forum.
If people want Wallace to stop with the misogyny maybe we should stop the misogyny on Charlton Life.
I will be disagreed with by people saying I am too ‘woke’, and on Charlton Life it is just harmless banter of some kind, which is the position it seems Greg Wallace takes.8 - Sponsored links:
-
Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.21
-
Which has been to the detriment of the site.swordfish said:
Perhaps the fact that those threads lie dormant most of the time these days is a positive and more encouraging sign of the times in that regard.seth plum said:In one respect @Chippycafc is right about moral high grounds.
Being a vegetarian I never watch the food shows on the television, but I do read Charlton Life, and in my opinion Charlton Life has quite a lot of the stuff Wallace is accused of, like in ‘Would you’, or Whose Rack’, or ‘New Bird on Countdown’ and in other places on this forum.
If people want Wallace to stop with the misogyny maybe we should stop the misogyny on Charlton Life.
I will be disagreed with by people saying I am too ‘woke’, and on Charlton Life it is just harmless banter of some kind, which is the position it seems Greg Wallace takes.
3 -
The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate why I know nothing about Greggggggg Wallace.ValleyGary said:Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.
However I do have a view on misogyny.1 -
But you came onto a thread called "MasterChef"seth plum said:
The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate why I know nothing about Greggggggg Wallace.ValleyGary said:Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.
However I do have a view on misogyny.0 -
And?Chizz said:
But you came onto a thread called "MasterChef"seth plum said:
The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate why I know nothing about Greggggggg Wallace.ValleyGary said:Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.
However I do have a view on misogyny.0 -
You know that any angle will be used to undermine your position.seth plum said:
And?Chizz said:
But you came onto a thread called "MasterChef"seth plum said:
The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate why I know nothing about Greggggggg Wallace.ValleyGary said:Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.
However I do have a view on misogyny.0 -
I just thought it was a bit surprising that someone who is a vegetarian and claims to know nothing about Gregg Wallace would open a thread called "MasterChef". That's all. No big deal.seth plum said:
And?Chizz said:
But you came onto a thread called "MasterChef"seth plum said:
The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate why I know nothing about Greggggggg Wallace.ValleyGary said:Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.
However I do have a view on misogyny.0 -
Masterchef has been all over the news.Chizz said:
I just thought it was a bit surprising that someone who is a vegetarian and claims to know nothing about Gregg Wallace would open a thread called "MasterChef". That's all. No big deal.seth plum said:
And?Chizz said:
But you came onto a thread called "MasterChef"seth plum said:
The reason I mentioned it was to illustrate why I know nothing about Greggggggg Wallace.ValleyGary said:Never knew you was a vegetarian, you should have mentioned it.
However I do have a view on misogyny.1 -
Full English by Gregg Wallace:JohnBoyUK said:isnt it about time we had some memes on this thread?...
8 -
The Rest is Entertainment podcast cover this topic this week (Richard Osman).Interesting observations on how it can arise in the world of TV including use of production companies and therefore potential for (initial) little or indirect BBC knowledge. Also though to what extent comments make the edits or do not and what is off the cuff or scripted / planned. Similarly whether Wallace himself watches back to appreciate what is edited out.Not a defence more an explanation and food fir thought.0
This discussion has been closed.
