Are men being assumed guilty by association? (Credits: Getty Images)
What would you rather be alone with in the woods: a man or a bear? Many women on social media would opt for the bear.
A reader writes to MetroTalk, feeling that he and 99% of other men are being tarred as guilty and therefore dangerous by association just because they share a gender with those who are.
Meanwhile, why homelessness is not a lifestyle choice, readers’ opinion on the Israel vs Hamas war, and would you have voted for a ‘no mayor term’ in last week’s local elections?
Share your thoughts on these topics and more in the comments.
‘Don’t treat me as guilty – just because I’m male’
Robert Bucknor (MetroTalk, Fri) argues against stop and search on the grounds it disproportionally targets ethnic minorities.
He says ‘no rational person would accept being treated as guilty before having to prove their innocence’.
That maybe true, unless you’re a male, in which case you do have to accept that you’re labelled as guilty by association.
That’s why so many of us are against this whole ‘men vs bear’ meme question.
It’s the question doing the rounds on social media where women are asked whether they’d feel safer alone in the woods alone with a bear or a man. Many choose a bear.
The issue isn’t that it bruises our egos – we just don’t want to be treated as guilty as a standard when 99 per cent of us aren’t.
It appears to be OK to assume guilt on men in general, but not on youths who could be carrying knives. Matt, Sheffield
METRO TALK – HAVE YOUR SAY
Let us know what you think…
Start a text with VIEWS followed by your comment, name and where you live to 65700. Standard network charge applies. Or email mail@ukmetro.co.uk Helpline for Views, Rush-Hour Crush and Good Deed Feed: 020 3615 0600.
Remember, you are more likely to be published if you provide your name and location with your
Full T&Cs here. Metro.co.uk is a member of the Independent Press Standards Organisation. Comments may be edited for reasons of legality, clarity or space.
(Credits: Getty Images)
Being kind to the homeless
I read Ryan’s letter about the type of man he saw shouting at a homeless person being what motivated him to try to help those living on the street (MetroTalk, Thu).
I would like to nominate him for the Good Deed Feed column.
Homelessness is very rarely a lifestyle choice. More often than not, it’s a due to ill health, relationship breakdowns, domestic violence, childhood abuse etc.
Many homeless people are former children in care who, because of the endless failings of the government and councils, end up on the streets at a very young age. Many are military veterans, to whom we all owe our liberty.
Please do stop to speak to a homeless person and give them the respect they richly deserve – and food, if you can.
Keep on helping, Ryan. The world is much richer as a result of your kindness.Sarah Bird, London
We’ve all negotiated at some time, most likely starting with our parents over bedtime or something like that.
Most of us have had to try to negotiate with chancers. But none of us has had to deal with callous religious fanatics bent on our destruction, which is the situation facing Israel.
Western leaders should be giving the Israelis their full support, not pressuring the Israeli government to make concessions to monsters. Otto Inglis, Crossgates
A referendum for a ‘No mayor this term’ option
Doug (MetroTalk, Fri) makes a good point about the mayoral vote in London.
He says given the turnout was less than 50 per cent, most people could be said to not want a mayor and so maybe we shouldn’t have one at all.
It makes me wonder how many people would have voted for an explicit ‘no mayor this term’ option had there been one, offering to put power in the hands of the proportionally elected assembly.
Perhaps the Green Party, which opposes the system of metro mayors, would have backed this option rather than have its own mayoral candidate.
Greater London never had an explicit mayoral referendum – the choice in 1998 was for the assembly and mayor together, as an ‘all or nothing’ choice.
We still don’t know how people would have voted had there been separate referendums for the two elements of the authority. Charles EL Gilman, Mitcham
Complacency is a bigger cyber-threat than hackers
(Credits: Getty Images)
Jonathan (MetroTalk, Thu) describes government outsourcing of data services as the ‘soft underbelly’ of cyber-security, following the hacking of Ministry of Defence armed forces personnel files.
I couldn’t agree more. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link and cyber-attackers will absolutely look to target any perceived weak spot.
That might be contractors, software not updated properly or phishing emails to staff who haven’t received enough training.
Bad actors will always exist, but often the biggest risk is not hackers outside a business but complacency within.
The good news is that organisations have the power to act and to protect – and we won’t accept anything less.
As the UK’s data protection regulator, we have no time for excuses.
Contracts must be managed properly with regular reviews, and responsibilities must be defined between contractor and contractee. We expect proper protections to be put in place for the data people are responsible for across the board. It’s everyone’s business.
Advice on getting it right can be found on our website ico.org.uk. John Edwards, Information Commissioner
MORE : Man arrested for giving restaurant fake one-star reviews
MORE : Map shows worst hit areas for whooping cough
MORE : Could a toad’s psychedelic venom be the next big anti-depressant?