Police in UK Warn About Dating Apps After Serial Killer Conviction (betanews.com)

Mark Wilson, writing for BetaNews: Police are warning people who use dating sites and dating apps to take extra precautions to ensure their safety. The advice comes after serial killer Stephen Port who contacted his victims through apps such as Grindr and Gaydar. While people making use of dating services have always been warned to take safety precautions, police are concerned that sexual predators are increasingly using such sites and apps as a way of finding potential victims. The UK's National Crime Agency has noticed an alarming increase in the number of people reporting cases of rape after meeting someone through a dating site or app. In 2009 the number was just 33, while in 2014 it had jumped to 184. Clearly things such changes to the reporting of sexual assault need to be factored in, as do considerations such as whether the number of reported incidents represents an increase in actual incidents in real terms.

Comments

Also..

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

They should also warn about the dangers of meeting people at bars, parties, friend's homes, outdoor areas, malls, indoor areas, businesses, parks, playgrounds, movie theaters, civic centers, post offices, forests, etc etc etc.

Re:Also..

[Solandri]

I think that's kinda the point. They're not giving the warning based on the premise that Internet meetings are more dangerous than other types of meetings. They're just warning people that meetings arranged over the Internet are just as dangerous as other meetings. There's a tendency for people to feel safer about meeting someone over the Internet because the initial correspondence is not direct. The nervousness and anxiety which primes your fight or flight mechanisms is missing or isn't as strong. And a lot of the subconscious body language cues which help you notice that something is "off" about this guy are completely absent. This may lull people into a false sense of safety about meeting someone IRL that they "know" from the Internet.

Reasonable Precautions

[Jason Levine]

Pretty much anyplace you meet someone (online or offline) has the potential of the other person being a creep or a criminal. This is why you never meet the person alone and in a private area for the first time. My wife and I met online (Yahoo Chat Rooms). We spoke for a month before meeting in person, but even then, my wife and I took precautions. We met in a very public place (a busy shopping area half way between where we each lived) and we each brought people with us to help "rescue" us if the other person wasn't who they said they were online. Thankfully, it all worked out nicely that day. (Except for having to leave each other at the end of the day. We clicked so well that we didn't want to separate.) Had it turned sour, though, we would have had precautions in place to ensure our safety.

Re:Reasonable Precautions

[Anonymous Coward]

That's illegal in the UK. That's illegal in the UK. Even assault sporks and big pencils are banned there

Stop reading the Daily Mail.

Re:It's a Welsh regiment, see

[mjwx]

Perhaps he should start reading the post he's responding to instead? Didn't see any mention of weapons in Jason Levine(196982)'s post.

Yes, the AC was sarcasm. But it wasn't very good sarcasm so it's ended up at -1 where it belongs.

For those in the UK who would actually like to know about the reality of self defence in the UK, I strongly recommend parting with 2 squid for this e-book.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Self-Defence-Law-Practical-Understanding-Defending-ebook/dp/B00V44TZ2U
50 pages that explains the self defence laws in very simple language.

Realistically, I don't feel the need to have a weapon to feel safe in the UK. Most people don't and that is a good thing. But even if you did use a weapon in self defence you'll likely get off (the Rozzers will ask "Did you use reasonable force" and nod their heads slowly... the response should be obvious).

That being said, I know a bit of Krav Maga, so I'm not worried about being attacked by a knife wielding chav in as much.

Re:It's a Welsh regiment, see

[mjwx]

Depends whether they like you or not. The corrupt masonic twats confiscated my kubotan when I lamped a car driver who'd knocked me off my bike and made the mistake of getting out to try and finish the job.

Actually, that one is explained in the book. OK, but I'll save you the 2 quid and explain it.

It didn't matter if you used your Kubotan for defence, you were carrying a weapon so the plod had to seize it regardless. If you had of used it, you still wouldn't have been in any more trouble if you could demonstrate that you felt you needed to use it for defence (he attacked you, so yes you would have been justified). That's the crux of self defence laws in the UK, its based on what you, the victim felt was threatening at the time. Of course they still would have taken it off you.

A Kubotan doesn't really have any other purpose besides being a weapon, unlike say a heavy cane, umbrella, golf bat, cricket stick, big arse steel maglite or Leatherman. Heck, you could even get away with a crow bar as they have legit purposes.

If your attacker wants to claim you used excessive force (as opposed to reasonable force) then they'll need significant evidence that you used far more force than was required to subdue an opponent. Where most people fail to grasp this is that excessive does not mean any more force than is required, but significantly more force. I.E. if you were to strike an opponent once they were down 2 or 3 times that will easily be written off by the judge as the heat of the moment. However if you did it 7-10 times more, its clear that you had time to see the opponent was no longer a threat. Also if you were to break their arm in the struggle, that would also be easily explained as reasonable, if you kicked out 3 of their teeth whilst they were on the ground, that would be excessive.