How stupid is Corbyn getting

That as well. Does that rule out anti-austerity and left-wingerness?

Genuine questions.

He is a democratic socialist

Hear, hear, sunseeker! The answer is to deal with thugs, not to separate women from other perfectly decent men.

Isn't he anti-austerity then? I thought he was.

Also, isn't he a fairly typical left-winger?

Not saying in this post whether I approve or disapprove of either of those things, just wondering what he stands for if he isn't an anti-austerity left-winger because that's the impression of him I was getting. If I've got that totally wrong, there's no hope for me, I'm afraid

I was half listening to a radio discussion about this and one lady from (I think) India said that they have these carriages there but if a woman travels in a "normal" carriage some men then assume she doesn't mind being groped.

What is proposed if the women only carriage is full - should a woman then wait for the next train?

The answer is more policing of public transport, with heavy sentences for those who are violent, to either sex, or behave in an anti-social way.

Good post Eloethan.

I have a feeling that if we weren't in the silly season for the media this would never have been on the front page of some papers. Surely what has happened in China is more important.

Although I have doubts about the practicality of this suggestion, and concerns about the underlying message I feel it gives out, at least JC is taking the matter seriously and consulting with people to try and find solutions.

If he had put forward a proposal that more should be spent (it would have to be a lot more) to effectively police the underground, he would then no doubt be accused of being a "typical left winger - too keen to spend taxpayers "hard earned money" ".

He was asked a question and gave a direct answer not the usual ' ha yes but, no but, or 'good question , next '

The fact that he's agreed to talk about it doesn't mean he's stupid. I may have said that already.

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

"Corbyn wishes to discuss it not bring it into force thatbags"

Yes, I'd gathered that.

I've no objection to anyone talking about it although I'm a little surprised he didn't have the same immediate reaction as a good number of other people have had and say, as they have on this thread, that it would be a retrograde idea, that doing more to stop some men being pests, that paying for more policing at problem sites/on problem trains, that isolating women is never the answer, etc, etc, etc ... why didn't he say that sort of stuff straight off. Perhaps he did and it just wasn't reported. Perhaps he didn't have time.

Lots of perhapses.

I think most people have got the idea that he agreed to discussing the issue of women only carriages. Some of us just wish he'd been a little sharper and said that the issue that needs discussing is predatory men. That said, I wouldn't be in his shoes for anything.

But then, I'm not.

Women's Aid, assertiveness for women classes etc etc have been around for decades yet women continue to be assaulted on public transport (and elsewhere). Its just plain pragmatic to keep women on trains as safe as possible while the enormous task of completely re educating the opposite sex goes on. I see that lots of good stuff goes on in the women's carriages in India -lots of health advice etc. Obviously not all men are uncomfortable travelling companions but while the minority of anti social ones remain I'd happily pay extra to travel in a ladies carriage -just as I am to use ladies conveniences which, thankfully, are mostly unisex. I should say that I'm a feminist too but not one who'd want to inconvenience others to score points. Corbyn is listening and being sensible it seems to me.

Good link Jen I particularly liked the tongue-in-cheek remark:

"It may sound like a man considering a relatively radical policy option and pledging consultation on it, but apparently it is in fact the end of days."

You would think it was when you read the title of this thread! I notice the OP has not returned.

When I expressed some doubts about this proposal, my husband said that it was not something initiated by JC but was one of a number of suggestions made when JC asked for people to put forward their ideas.

If it turns out, as the I reports today, that JC is going to propose it in a speech today, then I don't think it's a very practical idea. Having used the tube to get to work during rush hour periods, for 20 years or so, it is a bit of a scrum to get in any carriage at all. As others have said, who would monitor it - it would surely require an increase in platform staff and at the moment station staff are being laid off. But perhaps I'm being too negative - apparently Japan, India and Russia already have such a system.

In a sense it disempowers women and ideally one would hope that all men could behave like civilised human beings. That would, however, require a change of global culture where girls and women are valued as much as men, where they are not religiously and culturally depicted as "temptresses" and where their sexuality is not used to market products and services.That's not going to happen overnight and solutions are needed now.

I wonder if more training could be given to girls and young women on assertive behaviour. It is said that sex attackers are more likely to attack women whose body language and general demeanour appears nervous and unconfident. Perhaps more awareness of strategies that a woman might use to assist in keeping her safe might also be useful - though it seems wrong to me that this requires a woman to be constantly on guard and almost entirely responsible for maintaining her own safety.

"The women's-only carriages idea is logistically, politically and morally unsound. But considering it – and saying you want to consult women over it – is hardly worthy of the hysterical responses we've seen this morning. This is the punishment for politicians who dare to express opinions clearly. This is what has helped create the current generation of political pygmies in Westminster.

It's why families who help their loved-ones with assisted dying must do so while technically breaking the law – because we have politicians without the bravery to discuss the issue. It's why politicians speak in a way which constantly hedges their bets, without ever saying anything of value. It's why we have a prime minister who can make whole speeches without a single identifiable meaningful political statement in them. It's why Corbyn is facing three candidates who are seemingly incapable of expressing what it is they actually want to do with power."

For those who do not want or cannot be bothered to read the article.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/08/26/the-hysteria-around-corbyn-s-women-only-carriages-shows-why

politicians are going to get more boring.
At least people are talking about Corbyn and some even agree with him.

Or a gripe?

I did get a grip if you read my post!

The point people are missing here as did the origi so post is that it wasn't JCs idea so.some suggested it after the transport police a ounces how worried they are about women's safety and JC simply said that could be something that can be discussed. I wish everyone would get a gripe!!!!!

Sorry about typos.

Whilst I accept that the core problem is the men who attack women I'd much rather be protected whilst that's being dealt with.

Agree with you Thatbags. however, if it is a real problem then women should not use late night trains at all, use buses or taxis instead( trains are not particularly cheap.) This may force the train companies to re think their policies and actually do something because their profits drop.

Corbyn wishes to discuss it not bring it into force thatbags

Well yes, but would a Corbyn government, should there ever be one, not spend more on policing? Anti-austerity does mean spending more on public services, doesn't it?

I agree that it's down to money in the end and that better policing to prevent such attacks would cost more than putting signs on railway carriages saying "Women Only". But I think it would more more effective (I don't think the railway carriage idea would be at all effective) as well as more costly.

thatbags, more policing at a time all forces are dealing with cut backs

Lets imagine that the women only carriages exist.

I dont think it takes much imagination to see them being used by some passengers.

Now if women were in there, and they didnt get attacked, those non happenings are not going to get recorded.

Statistics getting produced at some point, are never 100% accurate, and so people dont know what didnt occur.

All women are vulnerable sometimes. As are men actually.

According to the link, there is a lot worse than verbal harassment going on sometimes.

Sometimes other parties nick or adapt others' ideas.

[too many uses of sometimes!]