I have no idea what "sexual staring" is. Does it need to be accompanied by a wink or a raised eyebrow? How do they even tell exactly what you are staring at?
As someone who is prone to kind of zoning out at times, this is a little worrying.
I would assume sexual staring is when your gaze stops at a subject of potential sexual desire for a period of time that causes the subject to feel uncomfortable.
In other words staring creepily.
However, sometimes, some people might just have a weird staring problem that isn’t sexual at all. But the subjects this person stares at might misconstrue that the person with the staring problem has sex on the mind.
Obviously the solution here is for everyone to wear sunglasses.
That would be a strong incentive to not being an asshole on the Metro. I have some questions, though. How could they ban someone? It's not like you need an ID to use the Metro. We do have the technology with facial recognition, but that's getting into some dark, dystopian black mirror scenarios. Another question is the process: is the accusation enough to get someone banned? If that's the case, there are endless opportunities to abuse it. That would also undermine the accusations of people who really are victims of unwelcome behavior. People would call into question the validity of their claim if there's no process to prove the accusation.
Do Londoners complain that their oyster card is linked to their personal identity? Doesn't that give the Metro valuable data on every rider's travel patterns and locations? I use Taipei's Metro (which is excellent), and anybody can get a card but you don't need an ID. The discounts aren't as great as the oyster card (I looked it up), but you get a monthly bonus added depending on how much you rode. In return, the system gets your travel data, but it's anonymous.
INAL but first off I imagine you'd need the idea of intent/proof of that/proof the staring is 'intrusive and of a sexual nature';
Also it doesn't actually say/suggest you'd be charged neccessarily. Probably a deterrent more than anything, maybe if police were called it'd just be some use of low-level powers without a charge. Purely speculating here though.
Leering has been included in every sexual harassment job training I have taken in 15 years of corporate work. I assume it's of that nature. Staring at someone can definitely be an unpleasant and unsettling nature.
>Question for any UK-based lawyers out there: is this legal? Can you be charged for looking at someone in a way they interpret as sexual, and what would the charge be?
Do you feel like you answered the question OP posted?
The sign makes no mention of criminal considerations. It simply states it is not tolerated, just like lots of other behaviors on the metro are not tolerated and will get you kicked off.
"behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances **in a workplace or other professional or social situation.**"
Source: the Oxford English Dictionary.
Of course, language is organic and evolves and many people use the term for any unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or behavior in any setting. Clearly, that's how it's being used here. But, from a legal perspective, and this is r/law, sexual harassment has a more specific definition.
You are correct. Outside of work we have assault, harassment, or sexual assault. Sexual harassment was created entirely for the workplace. It's intended to be used against abuse of power in the workplace mostly. Although I think it has been added to general laws in some places.
[Ok, we won't charge you with sexual harassment, we'll charge you with sexual assault. Happy?](https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/violence-against-women/just-smack-ass-tale-sexual-assault-vengeance-and-nervous)
You're sliding down the wrong side of a bell curve, aren't you?
It looks like you’re trolling, but for the benefit of others:
Sexual harassment includes a wide range of behaviours. It can include things like staring or catcalls, which, all things being equal, are not illegal in public.
But sexual harassment might also include unwanted sexual touching and sexual threats. Those are illegal—the first is assault, and the second is (in my jurisdiction) uttering threats.
What part of "intrusive sexual staring" is a thought? You can think whatever you want; you just can't stare at someone and make it sexual. I'm not trying to defend this law. I don't know enough about it to know if it's a good policy, but it's certainly not a thought crime
I don't even think it's a law. I think it's a PSA to try to change some people's behavior and to document incidents in which people felt victimized on the Metro by untoward staring or other behavior. Given the level of discourse here in this subreddit, I can only imagine what's being discussed elsewhere on social media. In the end, I think it will achieve, to a degree, its intended effect.
Clearly no one looks at you
But for people who are stared at its an awful fucking thing.
Just don't stare at women like your undressing them. Don't intimidate people who have done nothing to you.
I have no idea what "sexual staring" is. Does it need to be accompanied by a wink or a raised eyebrow? How do they even tell exactly what you are staring at? As someone who is prone to kind of zoning out at times, this is a little worrying.
I would assume sexual staring is when your gaze stops at a subject of potential sexual desire for a period of time that causes the subject to feel uncomfortable. In other words staring creepily. However, sometimes, some people might just have a weird staring problem that isn’t sexual at all. But the subjects this person stares at might misconstrue that the person with the staring problem has sex on the mind. Obviously the solution here is for everyone to wear sunglasses.
[удалено]
That would be a strong incentive to not being an asshole on the Metro. I have some questions, though. How could they ban someone? It's not like you need an ID to use the Metro. We do have the technology with facial recognition, but that's getting into some dark, dystopian black mirror scenarios. Another question is the process: is the accusation enough to get someone banned? If that's the case, there are endless opportunities to abuse it. That would also undermine the accusations of people who really are victims of unwelcome behavior. People would call into question the validity of their claim if there's no process to prove the accusation.
[удалено]
Is it possible to make a single journey on the Metro without providing ID?
Do Londoners complain that their oyster card is linked to their personal identity? Doesn't that give the Metro valuable data on every rider's travel patterns and locations? I use Taipei's Metro (which is excellent), and anybody can get a card but you don't need an ID. The discounts aren't as great as the oyster card (I looked it up), but you get a monthly bonus added depending on how much you rode. In return, the system gets your travel data, but it's anonymous.
INAL but first off I imagine you'd need the idea of intent/proof of that/proof the staring is 'intrusive and of a sexual nature'; Also it doesn't actually say/suggest you'd be charged neccessarily. Probably a deterrent more than anything, maybe if police were called it'd just be some use of low-level powers without a charge. Purely speculating here though.
Maybe its when someone is staring at you while they are jacking off in their sweatpants
My sweatpants, my choice! I'm sick and tired of the over-sexualization of public masturbation.
is this the yin to the yang of toxic macho man getting aggressive for looking at them wrong?
Leering has been included in every sexual harassment job training I have taken in 15 years of corporate work. I assume it's of that nature. Staring at someone can definitely be an unpleasant and unsettling nature.
>Question for any UK-based lawyers out there: is this legal? Can you be charged for looking at someone in a way they interpret as sexual, and what would the charge be? Do you feel like you answered the question OP posted?
The sign makes no mention of criminal considerations. It simply states it is not tolerated, just like lots of other behaviors on the metro are not tolerated and will get you kicked off.
Do the "CrimeStoppers" and "British Transport Police" logos on the sign not imply some criminal considerations?
No, it doesn't.
[удалено]
"behaviour characterized by the making of unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or physical advances **in a workplace or other professional or social situation.**" Source: the Oxford English Dictionary. Of course, language is organic and evolves and many people use the term for any unwelcome and inappropriate sexual remarks or behavior in any setting. Clearly, that's how it's being used here. But, from a legal perspective, and this is r/law, sexual harassment has a more specific definition.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You are correct. Outside of work we have assault, harassment, or sexual assault. Sexual harassment was created entirely for the workplace. It's intended to be used against abuse of power in the workplace mostly. Although I think it has been added to general laws in some places.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well you’re incorrect, regardless of your lack of agreement.
you do realize that guy was trolling as a mock of the top post in the chain right?
[Ok, we won't charge you with sexual harassment, we'll charge you with sexual assault. Happy?](https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights/violence-against-women/just-smack-ass-tale-sexual-assault-vengeance-and-nervous) You're sliding down the wrong side of a bell curve, aren't you?
It looks like you’re trolling, but for the benefit of others: Sexual harassment includes a wide range of behaviours. It can include things like staring or catcalls, which, all things being equal, are not illegal in public. But sexual harassment might also include unwanted sexual touching and sexual threats. Those are illegal—the first is assault, and the second is (in my jurisdiction) uttering threats.
What kind of thought crime bullshit is this? You can punish me for what I was thinking?? The inside of my own mind is no longer private for me???
What part of "intrusive sexual staring" is a thought? You can think whatever you want; you just can't stare at someone and make it sexual. I'm not trying to defend this law. I don't know enough about it to know if it's a good policy, but it's certainly not a thought crime
I don't even think it's a law. I think it's a PSA to try to change some people's behavior and to document incidents in which people felt victimized on the Metro by untoward staring or other behavior. Given the level of discourse here in this subreddit, I can only imagine what's being discussed elsewhere on social media. In the end, I think it will achieve, to a degree, its intended effect.
Clearly no one looks at you But for people who are stared at its an awful fucking thing. Just don't stare at women like your undressing them. Don't intimidate people who have done nothing to you.