It’s a pain to try and read. But the headline on the article itself seems to conflate two completely different statistics without any attempt at justification. Both terrible statistics but its not good journalism and rather designed as click bait presumably.
The criminal fraternity must not have got the memo!
Lots of words and no real substance. No idea what the “attacks” were. Are the 40k sexual assaults included in that number ? Or are they excluded ?
For a serious subject this is a stupidly shitty article.
[removed]
[deleted]
Was Sarah everard the first Street attack or something?
There is NO way in any reality that the victims are ‘mostly women’ not a chance on this earth. And for the record the police DO record the victims gender – I have access to various crime databases that blatantly have a field for that and it is populated. Saying it isn’t recorded is a way to further on this lie.
What the fuck is a street attack? The second paragraph changes the topic to “assaults” – thus the author’s *”street attack”* definition must be physical violence combined with something else (verbal “attacks”) ?
This article stems from an *apparent* figure from Anna Birley, organiser of women’s rights group Reclaim These Streets, that there were 228,492 (which is *9.5%* lower than the headline number) street attacks **but I cannot find any other source on this**.
Even by Daily Mail standards of poor journalism, this article is the pits.
So once again women are co-opting a male issue for their own
Men get attacked way more than women yet we are only meant to care when it happens to women
Women need to stop bringing up street attacks as if it only happens to them
(This is meant to be satire and repeate the arguments feminists use when men talk about mental health or sexual assault on an article about women)
9 comments
It’s a pain to try and read. But the headline on the article itself seems to conflate two completely different statistics without any attempt at justification. Both terrible statistics but its not good journalism and rather designed as click bait presumably.
The criminal fraternity must not have got the memo!
Lots of words and no real substance. No idea what the “attacks” were. Are the 40k sexual assaults included in that number ? Or are they excluded ?
For a serious subject this is a stupidly shitty article.
[removed]
[deleted]
Was Sarah everard the first Street attack or something?
There is NO way in any reality that the victims are ‘mostly women’ not a chance on this earth. And for the record the police DO record the victims gender – I have access to various crime databases that blatantly have a field for that and it is populated. Saying it isn’t recorded is a way to further on this lie.
What the fuck is a street attack? The second paragraph changes the topic to “assaults” – thus the author’s *”street attack”* definition must be physical violence combined with something else (verbal “attacks”) ?
This article stems from an *apparent* figure from Anna Birley, organiser of women’s rights group Reclaim These Streets, that there were 228,492 (which is *9.5%* lower than the headline number) street attacks **but I cannot find any other source on this**.
Even by Daily Mail standards of poor journalism, this article is the pits.
So once again women are co-opting a male issue for their own
Men get attacked way more than women yet we are only meant to care when it happens to women
Women need to stop bringing up street attacks as if it only happens to them
(This is meant to be satire and repeate the arguments feminists use when men talk about mental health or sexual assault on an article about women)