Auditors

[Fedster + 1,307]

The force warned people against going to house parties if they don't know the host as they could be raped.

The Party Animal campaign poster tweeted by West Yorkshire Police

Date - 22nd March 2019
By - Hermione Wright

3 Comments

 

Amidst a torrent of complaints about victim shaming, a force has pulled a controversial advertising campaign that suggests if a person accepts “free stuff” they could be raped.

The Party Animals campaign, tweeted last week, features two photographs – the first, a woman drinking and smoking, and in the second a woman appears distressed as she is followed by three men.

View image on Twitter

West Yorkshire Police

 

✔@WestYorksPolice

 

 

Has your child been invited to a party that they don’t seem to know much about?

Have a look at our Party Animals guide for advice on how they can stay safe: https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/party-animals 

 

6

6:30 PM - Mar 14, 2019

 

37 people are talking about this

 

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

 

The West Yorkshire poster states: “If you are asked to a house party or gathering, offered a lift, promised free drinks or drugs, beware.

“Free stuff can come at a very high price. If you don’t know the person whose house it is – don’t go. The price you pay could be rape.”

It attracted a deluge of comments from outraged individuals, who branded the campaign “appalling”, “horrific and “inappropriate”. A user even suggested that the attitude could discourage victims from coming forward to report crimes, with others demanding for the post to be deleted. 

Responding to the backlash, West Yorkshire Police said the campaign - tweeted this week - was actually launched in 2015 by the force, the Leeds Safeguarding Children Board, and West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner. The material was allegedly produced “following consultation with young people’s groups across West Yorkshire”.

Of the campaign, the force added: “It was launched to address a then emerging crime type of young people, both girls and boys, being lured to parties through the inducement of free alcohol or drugs by people seeking to sexually assault them.

“Given the campaign is four years old and was launched to address a very specific issue at the time, it was felt it was reaching the end of its natural life.

“It has now been ended to make way for upcoming campaign work aimed at protect vulnerable people from current threats and crime types.”

It is not the first time a force has landed in hot water following material construed as blaming victims for sexual assault and rape, with Liverpool City Council and Merseyside Police apologising in August last year for contentious social media posts.

View On Police Oracle

[Zulu 22 + 4,628]

So it appears that a Common Sense warning  is now seen as victim warning. Far better to give a warning before that after the event. Yes, women should be safe but not everyone out there can be trusted, but it iust just another form of grooming. 

[SimonT + 1,194]

I really get tired if this victim blaming blaming culture. 

Yes women shouldn't have to worry about being attacked, it should be men being educated that it's wrong. 

But hello, real world here. There are murderers and rapists and pedophiles and muggers and human traffickers who don't give a tiny fig about your rights or your indignation. They want money power or just a pound of flesh and if you don't want to take basic safety precautions then it's too bad. 

Strangely we rarely see backlash like this when advising people to lock their front doors. 

[Ether + 1,424]

Sounds more like someone who just enjoys blaming other people for their stupidity. 

If you put yourself at risk and ignore sensible warnings, you don’t deserve to be raped, but you also don’t get the right to complain enough isn’t being done by the police. 

You are 100% responsible for yourself, no one else. 

[ScotLass + 638]

I’m going to put it out there but women are always being told to watch what they wear and watch what they drink and don’t go to house parties with strangers but men don’t get the same warnings about nights out. I can understand why women are frustrated with victim shaming.

There’s a saying that’s done the rounds a lot. Essentially:
Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.

On the flip side I can appreciate the force’s position of warning women about a “tactic” or emerging trend in sexual assaults. It just could have been worded better.

[Ether + 1,424]

4 minutes ago, Mazza said:

I’m going to put it out there but women are always being told to watch what they wear and watch what they drink and don’t go to house parties with strangers but men don’t get the same warnings about nights out. I can understand why women are frustrated with victim shaming.

There’s a saying that’s done the rounds a lot. Essentially:
Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.

On the flip side I can appreciate the force’s position of warning women about a “tactic” or emerging trend in sexual assaults. It just could have been worded better.

But it’s less common that men are raped, it’s sensible to warn the public of emerging crime trends within their demographic, belief, gender etc group. 

Whats the alternative? Say nothing then get complaints they haven’t warned the public. 

People need to be less sensitive in the world. 

Edited March 24, 2019 by Funkywingnut

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Whats the alternative? Say nothing then get complaints they haven’t warned the public. 

When has the police ever been blamed for not warning women about such matters?

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

Seat belts are obviously victim blaming that's why I'm advocating from now on that motorists drive around without wearing one. They should be entitled to drive around without feeling it necessary to protect themselves against people crashing into them - who are clearly the ones at fault!

 

Fining people or taking them to court for not wearing a seat belt is one of the worst cases of victim blaming in modern history. Government statistics show that 99% of women have been pressured into wearing seat belts. It is unacceptable given that men are responsible for 30% more car accidents every year that women have to be "bound by straps" to prevent themselves from being hurt. These are indeed extreme and oppressive methods.

 

We propose that not only should seat belts be banned but there should be curfews in place for male drivers and orders in place to prevent them from driving on what we call "pink routes".

 

 

[David + 4,981]

@Mazza I don't disagree with your overall thrust at all, not in any shape or form whatsoever. However, there has to be an element of taking responsibility for your own actions and if anyone goes to a party with people they don't know and start doing 'stuff' they have no idea of, then who is to blame when things go wrong?

The warnings are going out, quite fairly in my opinion, and not necessarily blaming the victim per se, but at the same time, there has to be that level of personal responsibility, which is all too lacking now.

[ScotLass + 638]

But it’s less common that men are raped, it’s sensible to warn the public of emerging crime trends within their demographic, belief, gender etc group. 
Whats the alternative? Say nothing then get complaints they haven’t warned the public. 
People need to be less sensitive in the world. 

I don’t think I explained myself very well. What I mean is, women used to get told “oh don’t wear short skirts and drink too much” but there was less telling men “stop raping people, ok lads?”

The campaigns appear to have turned the opposite way, more about educating men that actually, no means no, and you need to respect that.

I agree that there should be a crime prevention message if and when there are emerging crime trends, but the general message shouldn’t be focused on changing victim behaviour, it should be on changing offender behaviour.

In this particular instance I think the intent was great but the execution left a little to be desired because it looked like a general message instead of an emerging trend crime prevention message. Does that make sense?

Ok imagine this. Scotland did a One Punch campaign all about folk losing their temper on nights out and killing or seriously injuring people through “one punch” assaults. The huge majority of the campaign was focused on potential offender behaviour, as in, if you punch someone you could kill them, go to jail, etc. A small proportion of it was focused on potential victim behaviour, i.e. just avoid confrontation, don’t drink too much, etc.

Imagine it was the other way around. Don’t drink too much in case someone ELSE decides to punch you in the face? Don’t speak to ANYONE in case they decide to punch you in the face?

Crime prevention campaigns relating to crimes against the person (sexual offences, assaults, comms offences, domestic offences, etc) need to be focusing on potential offender behaviour, not potential victim behaviour. You can’t compare it to other crime types (like frauds or HBs) because the motivations are entirely different.

[Ether + 1,424]

2 minutes ago, Mazza said:

 

I don’t think I explained myself very well. What I mean is, women used to get told “oh don’t wear short skirts and drink too much” but there was less telling men “stop raping people, ok lads?”

The campaigns appear to have turned the opposite way, more about educating men that actually, no means no, and you need to respect that.

I agree that there should be a crime prevention message if and when there are emerging crime trends, but the general message shouldn’t be focused on changing victim behaviour, it should be on changing offender behaviour.

In this particular instance I think the intent was great but the execution left a little to be desired because it looked like a general message instead of an emerging trend crime prevention message. Does that make sense?

Ok imagine this. Scotland did a One Punch campaign all about folk losing their temper on nights out and killing or seriously injuring people through “one punch” assaults. The huge majority of the campaign was focused on potential offender behaviour, as in, if you punch someone you could kill them, go to jail, etc. A small proportion of it was focused on potential victim behaviour, i.e. just avoid confrontation, don’t drink too much, etc.

Imagine it was the other way around. Don’t drink too much in case someone ELSE decides to punch you in the face? Don’t speak to ANYONE in case they decide to punch you in the face?

Crime prevention campaigns relating to crimes against the person (sexual offences, assaults, comms offences, domestic offences, etc) need to be focusing on potential offender behaviour, not potential victim behaviour. You can’t compare it to other crime types (like frauds or HBs) because the motivations are entirely different.

 

I don’t disagree that the offender behaviour should be the main focus, but I also do not think that giving sensible personal safety advice is a bad thing. Yes I would agree that the execution of the campaign may be a little crass, but the message not to go alone to parties is hardly revolutionary. Similar way lone females are advised not walk dark pathways, canals etc. Then again everyone is advised that. 

Crime will continue to increase so long as there is no deterrent, prison in the UK isn’t a deterrent at all. 

[obsidian_eclipse + 1,202]

There are a number of people who are entirely predatory unlike those who lose their temper and engage in 'one punch' deaths or alcohol induced fighting. It might be possible to reason with those by leaflet dropping or media attention, help them see that it's not a good idea to do what they do and think again.

Unfortunately the men (and some women are a party to it) who select vulnerable women or girls to rape know the consequences and for the most part don't care. Yes, of course we want to be breathing down their necks! However, in the mean time whilst they escape our attention they are still out there, taking advantage, drugging and raping.

If there were a person or group of people in society causing harm to certain others based on a profile, which I fitted. I would prefer to know the truth, however uncomfortable and restrictive it may make life, than be ignorant and happy but at serious risk.

I know it isn't so black and white as unfortunately as it stands if you take out one person or rape gang another will take its place. There are also those who aren't predatory and get drunk and lose control in a passionate situation ending up with rape, it is something which the victims need to feel secure about reporting. The perpetrators of this do need addressing with 'think twice'.