• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Woman sexually assaulted on Highland Chieftain

Status
Not open for further replies.

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,689
Location
Scotland
I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.
gravity.jpg
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
It doesn't explain why a collection of people are immobilised when it comes to being labelled as 'bystanders'.

The clue is in the definition of the word 'bystander' which is:

a person who is standing near and watching something that is happening but is not taking part in it

We assume that no other passengers were involved in the act so by definition, they were all bystanders. The fact that they have been 'labelled' by a psychologist who studied the situation after the event cannot immobilise them. They probably didn't even know that they had been 'labelled'.

It's not always the case and it has been known for persons to 'interfere' and in some cases be prosecuted for that.
 

crehld

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2014
Messages
1,994
Location
Norfolk
It doesn't explain why a collection of people are immobilised when it comes to being labelled as 'bystanders'.

Actually it does, and in quite extensive detail. Have you read the various studies on this 'effect'?

By what right do these academic works have to call these people 'bystanders' when they're viewing each situation from a wholly impersonal standpoint.

Again by reading the studies you will be able to see the evidence for yourself and be able to make an informed critique of the conclusions drawn. I (and it appears many others) would be very interested to see your evidence and analysis.

Having situations labelled is a superficial way of explaining away complex human reactions and interactions,

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. Sorry.

and I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.

Whether you believe the effect to exist and whether the effect actually exists are two very different things.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
It isn't clear from the article what steps the victim took to bring other passengers attention to the "inappropriate touching".
 

w0033944

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2011
Messages
552
Location
Norfolk
Would it be unfair to reference, in considering "Badger89"'s extensive denials of the existence of the bystander effect, the old line "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" (bearing in mind that Badger89 may well be male)?
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.

Which is why I politely decline to expand on my previous points regarding 'litigation' and bow out, firstly wishing that swift justice is applied, 'bystander cobblers' or not.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
Regarding the accuracy of Wikipedia:

Over the years, Wikipedia has been drastically updated. The site is far stricter with updated information.

Wikipedia is now considered to be one of the most reliable sources of information on the Internet to the point where it is perfectly acceptible to quote Wikipedia in court.

Source: Another 365 things people believe that aren't true, James Egan.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.

Which is why I politely decline to expand on my previous points regarding 'litigation' and bow out, firstly wishing that swift justice is applied, 'bystander cobblers' or not.

Then you can't realistically expect anyone to take you seriously.

Who would an average person rather believe? Proper scientific research papers published in a reputable journal or some bloke who spouts his own theories but refuses to back them up with hard solid evidence or reasoning?

It appears to me you simply have no idea what it takes for a paper to be published in these journals - the level of scrutiny it goes through. I have been through such a process, as have some of the others I suspect. Have you?
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.

And experiments, and interviews from 'bystanders' at actual incidents etc.. Just read some of the references rather than generalise with no experience, or other knowledge, and then use the 'I'll bow out' option.
 

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
The woman was allegedly sexually assaulted, which could be anything from having her breast gently touched to having her clothes ripped off, thrown to the floor and being rodgered senseless, I would hazard a guess that this incident would be closer to the first example than the second so the other passengers might not have even known anything inappropriate had taken place!
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,382
Someone has actually tried to qualify why people don't get involved. I'm shocked, I really am! Simple reason, it's called litigation and I am absolutely appalled that someone managed to find time to write the wiki (which is absolute drivel BTW) but not to help the person in distress.

What a spineless society we have become!

Wasn't there an incident a few years ago (Oxenholme?) where a 'good samaritan' ended up being stabbed?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It doesn't explain why a collection of people are immobilised when it comes to being labelled as 'bystanders'. By what right do these academic works have to call these people 'bystanders' when they're viewing each situation from a wholly impersonal standpoint.

Having situations labelled is a superficial way of explaining away complex human reactions and interactions, and I simply do not believe in such an 'effect'.

Well, you are of course entitled to your opinion.

But, in framing our opinions, we might give more weight to those who have studied the issue.

:)
 

Llanigraham

Established Member
Joined
23 Mar 2013
Messages
6,073
Location
Powys
I doth protest but they don't care; like the MMGW argument there's a lot of theory but very little practical evidence to convince those it exists beyond journals.

Which is why I politely decline to expand on my previous points regarding 'litigation' and bow out, firstly wishing that swift justice is applied, 'bystander cobblers' or not.

Or in other words; I've dug myself into a hole too deep for me to get out of (again"!!
 

47271

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2015
Messages
2,983
Oxenholme (May 2006, there's plenty about it to be found online) was an already violent situation which tragically led to the murder of the individual who intervened with the very best of intentions.
 

BRblue

Member
Joined
13 May 2015
Messages
271
Location
Sunny Sussex...
Oxenholme (May 2006, there's plenty about it to be found online) was an already violent situation which tragically led to the murder of the individual who intervened with the very best of intentions.

Just for clarity,
If you read the reports... he did no more than glance in their direction, he did not intervene.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Who would an average person rather believe? Proper scientific research papers published in a reputable journal or some bloke who spouts his own theories but refuses to back them up with hard solid evidence or reasoning?
Two sides of the same coin, not everyone is simplistic as you make them out to be, and besides I have done no theorising, just opining, which I'm entitled to do without the patronising.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Just a personal opinion but there seems to be a heck of a lot of 'utter twaddle' in this thread ! - presumably, it's just me.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Just a personal opinion but there seems to be a heck of a lot of 'utter twaddle' in this thread ! - presumably, it's just me.

When I replied to question in the original post of "why did no one help her, this train is usually full" with "bystander effect" I wasn't expecting someone else to come along vigorously rejecting the existence of bystander effect largely because there's a Wikipedia article on the subject and they don't believe anything on Wikipedia - presumably they also reject the existence of HSTs. ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

plymothian

Member
Joined
26 Sep 2010
Messages
735
Location
Plymouth
There's several pieces of CCTV footage that show what has become known as the "bystander effect".

One particular that I recall is a shop that has been set on fire due to arson, the customers just stand in the queue doing nothing while the place fills with smoke and fire. Once one person decides to say something, the others do too.

It's also called social conformity.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Two sides of the same coin, not everyone is simplistic as you make them out to be, and besides I have done no theorising, just opining, which I'm entitled to do without the patronising.

Your are entitled to express an opinion, subject to the forum rules, of course, but others are just as entitled to challenge you!

The question is really how much weight others will give to mere opinions when presented with no evidence in support of them :)
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
Your are entitled to express an opinion, subject to the forum rules, of course, but others are just as entitled to challenge you!

The question is really how much weight others will give to mere opinions when presented with no evidence in support of them :)

Again no need to be patronising; I can express opinions without evidence and if that irks/bothers people they can challenge me without further need to be priggish.

It really is that simple, Greenback.
 

Nevillehill

Member
Joined
13 Jun 2014
Messages
140
Just a personal opinion but there seems to be a heck of a lot of 'utter twaddle' in this thread ! - presumably, it's just me.

It's my fault as I started the thread, wish I hadn't, at the end of the day this is some bloke who as tried raping this poor women, he needs to be cought as the next step with a pervert is far serious.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Again no need to be patronising; I can express opinions without evidence and if that irks/bothers people they can challenge me without further need to be priggish.

It really is that simple, Greenback.

How is that patronising? It wasn't intended to be, it was meant as an illustration of the reality of life!

As I said, you can express opinions without evidence, but don't expect people to accept them, and don't get upset if they don't.
 

bb21

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
4 Feb 2010
Messages
24,151
Two sides of the same coin, not everyone is simplistic as you make them out to be, and besides I have done no theorising, just opining, which I'm entitled to do without the patronising.

Simplistic?

Feel free to carry on believing what you believe. We will just have to agree to disagree.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,672
Location
Redcar
It's my fault as I started the thread, wish I hadn't, at the end of the day this is some bloke who as tried raping this poor women, he needs to be cought as the next step with a pervert is far serious.

He didn't though, did he.

That is no defence of his actions, but is completely relevant in the context of the thread with questions asking why nobody intervened.
 

meridian2

Member
Joined
2 Nov 2013
Messages
1,186
How is that patronising? It wasn't intended to be, it was meant as an illustration of the reality of life!

As I said, you can express opinions without evidence, but don't expect people to accept them, and don't get upset if they don't.

But it's far from the 'reality of life' and that's the problem.People express opinions every day. They can explain why they feel that why but they're certainly not devalued if they're not backed up with evidence. That's the essence of a debate. If their explanation starts quoting what they perceive as factual then by all means they SHOULD back it up with evidence. In this case, my opinion is that the 'bystander effect' is entirely pseudo-scientific with no basis in reality. My evidence: I used to witness people crowding around whilst crimes were committed and their reasons were different for not intervening. Every situation is different and it cannot be explained away by one big umbrella term. Now people have retorted with links to academic research but have given me no reason, besides superficial re-assurances that they're somehow 'reputable', to trust their content. I may read the literature but I don't have to accept it and, moreover, no obligation to explain why.
 

jon91

Member
Joined
18 Oct 2010
Messages
307
Location
Blackburn
I don't think that there is anything 'priggish' about challenging a misinformed view on what is a clearly proven to exist social phenomenon.

As for academics only questioning, that gave me a good laugh.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
But it's far from the 'reality of life' and that's the problem.People express opinions every day.

Yes they do. That's the joy of having freedom of speech. No one is denying you a right to express your opinions, it's just a fact that expressing them doesn't mean that they are right, that others will agree with you and won't challenge what you say. That's also freedom of speech.

They can explain why they feel that why but they're certainly not devalued if they're not backed up with evidence.

This seems to be the crux of the matter. You feel devalued if others in the discussion prefer arguments put forward that are supported by evidence. I don;t think anyoen can do anything about that, sorry.

That's the essence of a debate. If their explanation starts quoting what they perceive as factual then by all means they SHOULD back it up with evidence. In this case, my opinion is that the 'bystander effect' is entirely pseudo-scientific with no basis in reality. My evidence: I used to witness people crowding around whilst crimes were committed and their reasons were different for not intervening. Every situation is different and it cannot be explained away by one big umbrella term. Now people have retorted with links to academic research but have given me no reason, besides superficial re-assurances that they're somehow 'reputable', to trust their content. I may read the literature but I don't have to accept it and, moreover, no obligation to explain why.

You don't have to accept it any more than other have to accept your opinion. However, it's more likely that those without any strong feelings will be persuaded by arguments that include some sort of supporting evidence, rather than an 'I've seen' type of argument.

This isn't a court of law, no one has to prove anything, it's just a debate, and there's no need for you to feel patronised, hurt or insulted if others don't agree with your opinions. You can continue to believe whatever you like, as will everyone else in a ll probability.

I'm very sorry that this thread has gone completely off topic.
 

al78

Established Member
Joined
7 Jan 2013
Messages
2,400
But it's far from the 'reality of life' and that's the problem.People express opinions every day. They can explain why they feel that why but they're certainly not devalued if they're not backed up with evidence.

As far as I'm concerned, if the opinion is expressed as an assertion, with no facts, data or evidence to back up that assertion, and the person making the assertion dismisses any evidence contrary to their assertion, with no logical reason, then it is nothing but noise and I will generally ignore it. Finding out the truth is the only way we can make progress, not just saying anything you like, just because the tired old entitlement to an opinion, and expecting everyone else to go "oh, ok then".

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/no-youre-not-entitled-your-opinion

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top