Ladies be careful! (Lounged)

[BlueOne]

I for one do not want or need to be told this fact when it is gratuitous and unhelpful. "Black" is no more valid as a single descriptor than "white". Agree with Honk and the others who have questioned why this was mentioned at all. Given the closeness of the encounter that seems to have taken place, I would have thought if the OP was trying to offer a useful description, they would have included some or all of these: age, height, build, hair style, hair colour, eye colour, accent, clothing...?

I am sure the woman involved was genuinely scared for her own reasons. This is obviously why she wanted the anecdote passed on to the wider community, but not sure how it was supposed to help.

[mrs f]

I think what a lot of people are missing here is that the guy was following her, then she stopped, forcing him to walk on then she went in a different direction to get away from him and he was running up the street (with his suitcase) straight at her. This IS scary, whether or not his is a nut job or needs locking up is not really what the poster was trying to judge, she was just (kindly) informing women to be cautius.

Also there is a BIG difference between giving a woman flowers who you haven't met and running at someone and creepely saying you like their boots.....

Having been attacked in the street at 6pm at night (with people round the corner) before I know how terrifying it is. Yes she got away ok, but this is threatening behaviour and it is good to highlight it.

[Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy]

There has been 4/5 threads here lately (including "Dog-Snatcher)

Anyone else reckon thats what's in the suitcase? It seems that his fondness for boots could be his undoing this time.

[Brendan]

Well the entire problem is a lack or manners and respect for women. Which was clearly evident and in the least deserving of a smack in the head, be the perpetrator black, white or purple.

[BlueOne]

Can't argue with that!

[Cassius]

Some of you forumites would be able to pick a fight in an empty room wouldn't you?

I agree with every word Strawbs has said.

[Brendan]

Are you talkin? to me?

Are you talkin? to me?

[honk]

Maybe we could set up a photobucket account.

Post covert photos of anyone you've seen in the Greater London area who behaved strangely, or 'looks a bit odd' up there.

That way everyone will know who to avoid.

These people need to be NAMED and SHAMED

[Keef]

I've only just seen this, and while I'm sure the incident was horrid, I am with *bob*, don't think he was being flippant, more just realistic about things.

[Jeremy]

Apparently you're not allowed to mention race these days when describing someone. In fact, I'm surprised the OP got away with saying that it was a man.

[BlueOne]

"Just a warning, a friend of mine was walking along Grove Vale towards Lordship Lane on Thursday about 6pm and felt she was being followed by a white man pulling a wheely suitcase"

Helpful description?

[honk]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Apparently you're not allowed to mention race

> these days when describing someone. In fact, I'm

> surprised the OP got away with saying that it was

> a man.

Looking at the original post (I'll get one of my identikit guys on this asap) I've got 'black man' and 'wheely suitcase' to go on.

Presuming he might sometimes leave the house without his luggage, that just leaves 'black man' to go on. Which is ridiculous.

It was an irrelevant detail to accompany a vague description forming part of an even vaguer post alerting us to the existence of someone who hadn't actually committed an offence, who may or may not live in the area.

Keep your eyes peeled.

[Strawbs]

I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant detail. It is helpful in the description as it then excludes potential suspects of different races hence their search for the offender is narrowed..

I think there are people just being outright argumentative on this thread for seemingly no particular reason and they may have failed to notice but you are not really achieving much either!

[honk]

Strawbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I absolutely disagree that it is an irrelevant

> detail. It is helpful in the description as it

> then excludes potential suspects of different

> races hence their search for the offender is

> narrowed..

>

This doesn't get past the fact that the post basically warns forumites to 'be wary of black men', given lack of any other detail.

If you have a bogeyman story to share, perhaps give better detail in future, that way I'll know who to go chasing after with my pitchfork.

[Jeremy]

I agree, it is not especially useful without any further description (height, approx age) to go on.

But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a blond haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on that.

[pk]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree, it is not especially useful without any

> further description (height, approx age) to go

> on.

>

> But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a blond

> haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on that.

perhaps that's because discrimination on the basis of race is a problem and discrimination on the basis of height or hair colour isn't (IMO)?

do you not appreciate that some people have negative stereotypes about black people (or perhaps people of certain religions) that they do not have about tall or blond people?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Hence my point about the "fullest" description.

One feature alone is insufficient(although anything that narrows it down can only be a plus point if there is genuine reason for concern.

Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is running off and crosses the road.

All a bystander can see about the obvious assailant is his skin colour.

Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical example, would someone really say that as the only feature available is his skin colour then that should NOT be mentioned?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

pk Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I agree, it is not especially useful without

> any

> > further description (height, approx age) to go

> > on.

> >

> > But if she had just said "a tall man", or "a

> blond

> > haired man", people wouldn't be jumping on

> that.

>

>

> perhaps that's because discrimination on the basis

> of race is a problem and discrimination on the

> basis of height or hair colour isn't (IMO)?

>

> do you not appreciate that some people have

> negative stereotypes about black people (or

> perhaps people of certain religions) that they do

> not have about tall or blond people?

That is true, in some cases, but if a crime(not talking now about this "incident" ) has definitely been committed surely one has to weigh up the safety and warning aspects against the fact that if the description of the Suspect happens to be Black then it should not be mentioned because "some" people have negative stereotypes about Black people?

[halicon]

I cant believe some of you are being such idiots!

It was just a warning for any women walking around ED on their own and BOB clearly you are single, or should be, chivalry is dead!!

This man may not be dangerous or he might be! You do not run at a single woman, walking along a dark street, on their own shouting "dont be scared", if you are sane and rational, especially wearing the ugly boots she was wearing! But more worrying he doubled back down LL to follow her and lifted the suitcase so she didnt hear the wheels!

It doesnt matter what colour his skin was, what he said or how he behaved the fact is he is clearly troubled and who knows where his mental state is going, so Ladies be careful!

[Jeremy]

Yes I realise that pk... doesn't change the fact that "black", "asian", "white", etc are all perfectly valid and inoffensive ways of describing someone. So the OP didn't include any other description... lack of detail is not a crime.

By all means continue to preach over-the-top PCness if it makes you feel better about yourself. I should have known better than to get involved...

[honk]

> Question: A Rape has been committed and a Guy is

> running off and crosses the road.

>

> All a bystander can see about the obvious

> assailant is his skin colour.

> Given that he was too far away, in my hypothetical

> example, would someone really say that as the only

> feature available is his skin colour then that

> should NOT be mentioned?

In that case it would be relevant, as rape was a crime last time I checked. A police enquiry presumably conducted to a protocol would be launched, involving witness reports, CCTV footage etc.

In this case someone is warning people on an internet forum to be wary of black men.

To conclude I would say yes, there is a difference.

[Pickle]

Well said Halicon! I, for one, took the initial post at face value - a well meant warning to anyone walking alone after dark. It must have been a very scary situation to be in, and hopefully one that won't be repeated.

[pk]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes I realise that pk... doesn't change the fact

> that "black", "asian", "white", etc are all

> perfectly valid and inoffensive ways of describing

> someone.

in certain circumstances i agree, have i suggested otherwise?

So the OP didn't include any other

> description... lack of detail is not a crime.

have i suggested that it is a crime?

> By all means continue to preach over-the-top

> PCness

what's over the top? i said that people are more likely to be discriminated against for being black than for being tall or blond - i pointed out why i think people would not respond in the example that you yourself set out - sorry if that offends you (well not really sorry). you think that that's OTT?

if it makes you feel better about yourself.

> I should have known better than to get involved...

[*Bob*]

halicon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> BOB clearly you are single, or should be, chivalry is dead!!

I'm afraid not, halicon. Quite frankly I've been beating girls off with a stick (not literally) until Mrs Right (not her real name) pinned me down.

I assume they like me for my ability to treat them as equals, rather than any skills I might have in the laying-coats-over-puddles department.

[halicon]

Nothing to do with coat over puddles you T**T!

More to do with being concerned for Mrs Rights safety if she was walking home at 6pm in the evening and a stranger ran at her! Although maybe she is used to that sort of bullish behaviour being with you and should beat you with a very big stick!

And as for treating us as equals I dont think this guy would have followed or run at any of you male, insensitive, gits!

Be aware that the person it happened to reads these and how awful she must feel, when all she wanted was to prevent the fear being repeated on any one else!