Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

Reviews and Books Galore

Wow. Trying to grope her?

Edit: I was chatting to a woman on the street. Obviously trying to assault her when her back is turned.

Likeabossboss

Waiting for her on a railway bridge and then touching her arm.

Standing in front her not saying a thing and touching her waist.

It is pretty creepy and sounds like he infatuated with her.

He hasn’t sexually assaulted her but a clear message from the police should have sufficed. Stupid this has been brought to court, I don’t think so. Common sense should have prevailed.

The whole Oxford thing sounds like she was looking for any excuse so mammy and daddy wouldn’t be mad she didn’t get the results to get in. She’s just using this as an excuse in my eyes.


Snowflake generation

Boggles

Hoboo wrote: »

And therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with her not getting into Oxford.

"He would have touched my breasts had I not moved away". If he wanted to touch her breast he'd have walked up to her and touched her breast. Couldn't do her mock exams and therefore couldn't go to Oxford? Seriously, she's a fantasist at best.

The application process to Oxford involved going to Oxford.

Did you read the article or do you just normally side with creepy young men touching school girls?

'I struggled for a couple of months afterwards, I was applying for Oxford at the time and I found going to Oxford a stressful thing.

'It just makes everything a little bit scarier - if there is a guy walking towards me by himself I start to panic.

El_Duderino 09

Likeabossboss wrote: »

Waiting for her on a railway bridge and then touching her arm.

Standing in front her not saying a thing and touching her waist.

It is pretty creepy and sounds like he infatuated with her.

He hasn’t sexually assaulted her but a clear message from the police should have sufficed. Stupid this has been brought to court, I don’t think so. Common sense should have prevailed.

Snowflake generation

If he doesn't get social interactions then the "clear message" by police won't do what you think. At the very least he needs a "clear message" in the form of therapy by a trained psychologist. and and assessment to determine his risk level.

gctest50

Therapy ? therapy ? 10 years in jail will help Jeffrey Dahmer there understand
She's lucky she didn't get murdered


"Convicting Griffiths, magistrates told him: "The complainant's evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment. We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.

"Had she not taken evasive action the assault was likely to have been even more serious. The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second.”

.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If he doesn't get social interactions then the "clear message" by police won't do what you think. At the very least he needs a "clear message" in the form of therapy by a trained psychologist. and and assessment to determine his risk level.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he is shy and awkward, that is what his defense came up with to try and explain his creepy actions.

The Cops didn't believe it, the CPS didn't nor the Magistrate.

Again this case wasn't decided on a heavily slanted minimum detail article in the Daily Mail.

El_Duderino 09

Boggles wrote: »

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that he is shy and awkward, that is what his defense came up with to try and explain his creepy actions.

The Cops didn't believe it, the CPS didn't nor the Magistrate.

Again this case wasn't decided on a heavily slanted minimum detail article in the Daily Mail.

Who said they didn't believe it? Being shy and awkward wouldn't make him not guilty. It might mitigate in his favour however. We have very little evidence for what happened. If we're just going to pick parts and dismiss them, then what's the point discussing it at all?

Why would you dismiss the idea that he's socially awkward? Lot's of otherwise functioning people don't get social Interactions.

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why would you dismiss the idea that he's socially awkward?

Because the Judge did. His actions don't ring true for someone who is shy, quite the opposite really.

He also claimed he has / had friends, they moved away for some reason.

Looking at it from a defense point of view, how else would you explain away such predatory behavior?

Reviews and Books Galore

gctest50 wrote: »

Therapy ? therapy ? 10 years in jail will help Jeffrey Dahmer there understand
She's lucky she didn't get murdered


"Convicting Griffiths, magistrates told him: "The complainant's evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment. We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.

"Had she not taken evasive action the assault was likely to have been even more serious. The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second.”

.

So, for the first time in history, we might have somebody found guilty based on the judge's own opinion on the defendants motivation. And the mention of evasive action is absurd imo.



Again, we should really lock all the Italian men up at this stage.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

riffmongous wrote: »

you just left out half the story, gah Boards really needs to let you call out OPs like this for what they are

That gives a bit more detail but really just shows it to be a mildly creepy incident. Not worthy of going to trial, IMO.

Fornevermore

There's a really nasty stench of incel around here.

Hoboo

Boggles wrote: »

The application process to Oxford involved going to Oxford.

Did you read the article or do you just normally side with creepy young men touching school girls?

Going to Oxford doesn't mean she went to Oxford, she meant the process of going to Oxford. She hadn't even been accepted, yet she talks like she had. Fantasist. Where does it say the application process involved actually going to Oxford? And why would going to visit a college be stressful? I'll answer for you. It doesn't, and it wouldn't be, because it didn't happen.

Btw the creepy young man was a schoolboy when it happened, he was 18, she was 17, the same school year.

And you've the neck to ask me have I read the article.

One eyed Jack

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

So, for the first time in history, we might have somebody found guilty based on the judge's own opinion on the defendants motivation. And the mention of evasive action is absurd imo.

Eh? This happens all the time in the Lower Courts

If it had been determined that the offence was so severe that it was an indictable offence as opposed to a summary offence, then the case would have been passed forward to a Crown Court, an indictable offence, trial in front of a jury, and if convicted the consequences would have been far more severe -

In relation to England and Wales, the expression "summary trial" means a trial in the magistrates' court. In such proceedings there is no jury; the appointed judge, or a panel of three lay magistrates, decides the guilt or innocence of the accused. Each summary offence is specified by statute which describes the (usually minor) offence and the judge to hear it. A summary procedure can result in a summary conviction. A "summary offence" is one which, if charged to an adult, can only be tried by summary procedure. Similar procedures are also used in Scotland.

Summary offence, Wikipedia


We have them in Ireland too -


A summary offence is an offence which can only be dealt with by a judge sitting without a jury in the District Court. While offences which can or must be tried before a judge and jury are called indictable offences.


Classification of crimes in criminal cases, Citizens Information

Boggles

Hoboo wrote: »

Going to Oxford doesn't mean she went to Oxford, she meant the process of going to Oxford. She hadn't even been accepted, yet she talks like she had. Fantasist. Where does it say the application process involved actually going to Oxford?

I all ready pointed it out to you. But here you go again.

I struggled for a couple of months afterwards, I was applying for Oxford at the time and I found going to Oxford a stressful thing.

'It just makes everything a little bit scarier - if there is a guy walking towards me by himself I start to panic

To gain entry to Oxford you may have to undertake workshops and interviews.

Hoboo wrote: »

And why would going to visit a college be stressful? I'll answer for you. It doesn't, and it wouldn't be, because it didn't happen.

She all ready explained it above.

Your confidence on how every single 17 year old girl would react to an incident like that is both astounding and stupid in equal measure.

Hoboo wrote: »

Btw the creepy young man was a schoolboy when it happened, he was 18

18 = adult male

So Creepy young man.

What's confusing you exactly?

punisher5112

It's very well possible he is the type that would end up been much worse, but we don't know and won't until or if it happens.

What he done was very weird and wrong but it wasn't sexually assaulting someone.

In saying that his behaviour is not normal and is well possible the start of something worse.

Unfortunately we have to wait till he actually does do something toll anything will be done.

He is probably like them sitting at home just playing video games and was never told no or when he was 10 that he couldn't have an 18s game...

pinkyeye

Midster wrote: »

It is completely hilarious how females talk to, and touch male colleagues in the work place and never a single headline. Yet if it’s a man, the flashing blue lights go on and all of a sudden he’s a criminal.

He touched her friggin arm for gods sake!! Yes he was a little bit awkward, maybe there was a past trauma with a girl he might have liked in his past.

Again and again men are being sent a clear message not to talk to, approach, or touch (even if it’s just to make way to just get to the Jonny in time)

I predict in the future there will be no relationships what so ever, no marriages, no babies and no love what so ever.

And you women out there will be sat alone, depressed and eating ice cream, and getting fat wondering where on earth did all the real men go.

Well, well done in advance women kind for killing off the whole of the human population, just because you got so far up your own arses to realize that not every man has a clue, and some, yes some men are so scared of approaching women that they will definitely act un naturally, look and sound a bit weird, and they get banged up anyway.

Think what that would do to your own view of the opposite sex... if I’m ever single again I’m going to kill myself

Jesus, you need help.

El_Duderino 09

Boggles wrote: »

Because the Judge did. His actions don't ring true for someone who is shy, quite the opposite really.

He also claimed he has / had friends, they moved away for some reason.

Looking at it from a defense point of view, how else would you explain away such predatory behavior?

When did the judge say he dismissed the idea that the guy was socially awkward? If the judge didn't say it, say so.

AulWan

punisher5112 wrote: »

Unfortunately we have to wait till he actually does do something toll anything will be done.

He is probably like them sitting at home just playing video games and was never told no or whenHe didn't stop the first time he was 10 that he couldn't have an 18s game...

He did do something.

He walked up to a girl who didnt know him and touched her, uninvited - twice. He clearly freaked her out.

She brushed him off the first time, and told him to stop the second time.

Suggesting what he did wasn't 'serious enough' in someway, is being totally dismissive of the girl in this situation.

Was she supposed to wait until the next time, when he dragged her into the bush and probably commited a much worse assault, before reporting him?

It was the authorities who decided to press the charges. They obviously saw a case and as he was convicted, so did the magistrates.

Hopefully more girls and women will start coming forward and reporting this kind of behaviour when it happens.. Then maybe the message will finally start getting across that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable any more.

Ironicname

AulWan wrote:

If a woman or girl did exactly what the boy did in this case, I'd say exactly the same thing.

I don't believe you.

AulWan wrote:

This is NOT about gender.

It absolutely is. If sexes were reversed, there is no way whatsoever the woman would be charged with sexual assault.

Salary Negotiator

The incels are out tonight.

meathstevie

Suttree wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this lad is not actually going to get 10 years in prison.

Not when he was found guilty by Manchester Magistrates Court anyway. That’s the English equivalent of the District Court, one year maximum per offence.

Hoboo

Boggles wrote: »

I all ready pointed it out to you. But here you go again.



To gain entry to Oxford you may have to undertake workshops and interviews.



She all ready explained it above.

Your confidence on how every single 17 year old girl would react to an incident like that is both astounding and stupid in equal measure.



18 = adult male

So Creepy young man.

What's confusing you exactly?

Your English comprehension is what's confusing.Is English actually your native tongue? She didnt go to Oxford! The study and prep to go to Oxford was what was stressing her out, it's pretty simple. And to try and back up your nonsensical theory youre guessing the application process.

If the girl was 18 you wouldn't refer to her as a woman. She'd still be a schoolgirl. Your choice of words are telling, another suemepaddy.

freshpopcorn

Mod NoteI deleted some rereg comments and chats!

Yer Da sells Avon

spodoinkle wrote: »

the world is officially f*cked. My previous life of chatting up the ladies could have me facing the death penalty, I touched more arms than I can remember.

Did you make sure to approach them in isolated locations? And if they ignored your advances the first time, did you approach and touch them a second time?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think most of us understand that. That it even ended up in a court or that there is a facility for that to happen is the worrying part

Why does it worry you that approaching and touching a lone teenage girl on two separate occasions, in isolated locations, can land you in trouble? Do you have a tendency to behave like this yourself?

padd b1975 wrote: »

I think I'll have to start to come to terms with the fact that I'm never going to get the ride ever again.

Have you considered just... I don't know... not approaching and touching lone teenage girls in locations where they're likely to feel vulnerable? I somehow doubt that it's likely to ever be a successful method of getting your end away, quite frankly.

I'd hazard a guess that none of you have anything to actually worry about.

She was absolutely right to make the complaint about his creepy behaviour. But it's a shame that the police couldn't have found a more humane and effective way of dealing with the situation than criminalising someone who (if his words are to be taken at face value) probably needs some kind of therapeutic intervention rather than punishment.

sk8erboii

Lol @ everyone here panicking. Just dont be a creepy weirdo and you wont get sued.

Yer Da sells Avon

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Did you make sure to approach them in isolated locations? And if they ignored your advances the first time, did you approach and touch them a second time?



Why does it worry you that approaching and touching a lone teenage girl on two separate occasions, in isolated locations, can land you in trouble? Do you have a tendency to behave like this yourself?



Have you considered just... I don't know... not approaching and touching lone teenage girls in locations where they're likely to feel vulnerable? I somehow doubt that it's likely to ever be a successful method of getting your end away, quite frankly.

I'd hazard a guess that none of you have anything to actually worry about.

She was absolutely right to make the complaint about his creepy behaviour. But it's a shame that the police couldn't have found a more humane and effective way of dealing with the situation than criminalising someone who (if his words are to be taken at face value) probably needs some kind of therapeutic intervention rather than punishment.

You're better than this. Misrepresenting arguments isn't a dignified form of debate. Get a grip.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

You're better than this. Misrepresenting arguments isn't a dignified form of debate. Get a grip.

Read it again. You missed the following line:

I'd hazard a guess that none of you have anything to actually worry about.

I thought I'd place the UK definition of sexual assault in case it can throw some light on how this conviction came about-

Was the psychological nature of the impact on the victim the key reason for the conviction, based on the definition? Is it the fact that the girl believed the approach and touching were sexually motivated, (even though the touching was confined to an arm and the waist)- was this enough to meet the definition of sexual assault?

It would be interesting to hear from people with an English or Irish legal background to get their view. Certainly, the girl believed that her breast would have been touched had she not moved- coupled with the repeated attempts (two) of the assailant, him putting his arm around her waist and his strange and concerning demeanour, I'm assuming that all of this together constituted a sexual assault under the legal definition.




The overall definition of sexual or indecent assault is an act of physical, psychological and emotional violation in the form of a sexual act, inflicted on someone without their consent. It can involve forcing or manipulating someone to witness or participate in any sexual acts.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/

Boggles

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When did the judge say he dismissed the idea that the guy was socially awkward? If the judge didn't say it, say so.

The complainant's evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment. We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.

'Had she not taken evasive action the assault was likely to have been even more serious. The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second

She didn't buy his BS excuse and neither do I. Because it is nonsensical.

The chan chan man

(Harmonica playing)

So..what are you in for?

Me? Touched a girls arm...