Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

AulWan

The magistrates didn't seem to have any issue with lack of evidence.

It's your bias that is making you question the conviction. It's also making you dismissive of the trauma to the girl involved.

You know, the actual victim here?

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

The magistrates didn't seem to have any issue with lack of evidence.

It's your bias that is making you question the conviction. It's also making you dismissive of the trauma to the girl involved.

You know, the actual victim here?

:rolleyes:


Women aren't flowers.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Why are wondering if this young man is touching male classmates inappropriately? That is beyond weird.

Why? You have been asked this question many times in this thread and you gaslight (in a really uneducated manner) every time.

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

This is a total over-reaction. My god, you actually sound petulant.

Here's the thing. Maybe if "ordinary blokes" tried treating women like actual human beings instead of pieces of meat that they can touch whenever they want, then they shouldn't have any need to worry about becoming an incel.

You don't need to touch a woman to initiate a conversation, nor do you need to corner her in a secluded place. In fact, I highly recommend not doing either of those things, if you to be successful with the ladies.

You'd be surprised how many women find being treated with respect extremely sexy.

Women don't like men to tiptoe around them or treat them as if they are foreign objects entitled to more 'respect'.



It's not the 1500s any more.

El_Duderino 09

Boggles wrote: »

Don't stalk and touch school girls should not really have to be pointed out to a functioning 18 year old male.

An 18 year old who doesn't understand social interactions? Yeah, depending on what that guy already understand, they might not know what's wrong about it. Look at this thread. Loads of posters don't agree it's a crime

wakka12

Im sure theres more it than we know. Nobody will go through the effort of reporting to police for just touching their arm, obviously, she felt she was in further danger , whether that was irrational thought or not is another thing

RandomName2

Boggles wrote: »

It's been explained several times what happened and how it happened. I suggest you read the thread.

But she reported the incident(s) to the police, the Police with the CPS decided to "press charges".

Ok

Boggles wrote: »

No.

But why? Physical contact doens't need to be sexual in nature for it to consittue sexual assault, why not verbal interaction. She may have felt threatened by him continually accosting her in such a manner, does that not merit the title of assault, then?

Boggles wrote: »

Why are wondering if this young man is touching male classmates inappropriately? That is beyond weird.

lolz rofl Boggles, that totes 100% merits facepalm. LMGTFY, answer = no.

Cop onto yourself and improve your posting decorum Boggles. Pretending to be too stupid to understand hypothetical scenarios in a failed attempt to portray another poster as weird is unbecoming, and highlights your entire position to be as sexist as I was making it out to be.

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

:rolleyes:


Women aren't flowers.

Never said they were. What has that got to do with anything?

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Women don't like men to tiptoe around them or treat them as if they are foreign objects entitled to more 'respect'.

It's not the 1500s any more.

Whose asking anyone to tip-toe around them or treat them like foreign objects? I think you are confusing respect with deference.

I don't expect men to open doors for me, or pay for my drinks, or carry my shopping bags. I don't expect men to always make the first move.

I do expect men to keep their hands to themselves. I do expect them to maintain eye contact when speaking to me, or at minimum, their eyes above boob level.

Is that really too much to expect?

Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

RandomName2

AulWan wrote: »

I do expect them to maintain eye contact when speaking to me, or at minimum, their eyes above boob level.

Is that really too much to expect?

Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?

No, but if they didn't, would you expect them to be arrested?

I think it is worth reiterating, that the man in the OP was arrested and convicted for briefly touching a young woman's waist. It was clearly wrong. Maybe some people are disputing whether or not his behavior was wrong, but I don't actually see that here. The fact of it being wrong does not mean it merits the punitive nature of the response though.

What would have been the sensible thing to do? For him to be given a warning along the lines of "This young woman doesn't want you bothering her. Maybe you think you are being nice, but she doesn't want to talk to you. Please leave her alone. If you don't, there will be consequences"

That would have been sane. The actual response was insane. It's as insane as those Americans who we laugh at who feel mildly threatened by someone and consequently unload an entire magazine into them (maybe arguing 'stand your ground' afterwards).

This isn't an either or situation. It is possible to react to something in a measured way.

Boggles

RandomName2 wrote: »

But why? Physical contact doens't need to be sexual in nature for it to consittue sexual assault,

It does where this crime took place.

RandomName2 wrote: »

why not verbal interaction. She may have felt threatened by him continually accosting her in such a manner, does that not merit the title of assault, then?

Your clear example which I responded to is not sexual assault.

RandomName2 wrote: »

lolz rofl Boggles, that totes 100% merits facepalm. LMGTFY, answer = no.

Everything okay?

RandomName2 wrote: »

Cop onto yourself and improve your posting decorum Boggles. Pretending to be too stupid to understand hypothetical scenarios in a failed attempt to portray another poster as weird is unbecoming, and highlights your entire position to be as sexist as I was making it out to be.

It is extremely weird and quite arbitrary just to throw random moot examples into the mix. Something which you have consistently done since you arrived.

What if he touched a penguin, who gives a fúck. It's not relevant to what happened.

What's your problem with just dealing with the facts we know of this particular case without going down your bizarre rabbit holes and off on silly irrelevant tangents?

You are not that insecure are you?

Is that what this is?

AulWan

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, but if they didn't, would you expect them to be arrested?

I think it is worth reiterating, that the man in the OP was arrested and convicted for briefly touching a young woman's waist. It was clearly wrong. Maybe some people are disputing whether or not his behavior was wrong, but I don't actually see that here. The fact of it being wrong does not mean it merits the punitive nature of the response though.

What would have been the sensible thing to do? For him to be given a warning along the lines of "This young woman doesn't want you bothering her. Maybe you think you are being nice, but she doesn't want to talk to you. Please leave her alone. If you don't, there will be consequences"

That would have been sane. The actual response was insane. It's as insane as those Americans who we laugh at who feel mildly threatened by someone and consequently unload an entire magazine into them (maybe arguing 'stand your ground' afterwards).

This isn't an either or situation. It is possible to react to something in a measured way.

Did you read my original post on this thread? If you didn't, I'll repeat what I said - he didn't deserve to be convicted of a crime. Given his age, I do think he should have been ordered to attend some kind of mandatory therapy /social awareness /consent classes and maybe be kept on a watchlist for a few years.

But what disturbs me about this thread is the number of posters who came in all guns blazing for a 17 year old girl and how they believed she didn't even have grounds to make a complaint. That is truly disturbing.

She and her feelings and how this effected her did not even appear to register. Their attitude is poor guy, she should have simply accepted his unwanted advances, brushed it off and not reported it.

It quite shocking and alarming and frankly goes to show that a lot of work still needs to be done in this area. I was never a big fan of the metoo movement, but after reading the attitudes on this thread, oh boy has my mind been changed on that one.

I'm 99% sure what happened here is he went for her breast and she deflected this by turning her shoulder towards him so his hand landed on her arm. I'm sure many, many women would be familiar with that particular evasive action.

Remember, it was his actions that put him where he is today, not hers.

joseywhales

So if the alleged victim was male, would the case have resulted in a conviction?

AulWan

Skittles10 wrote: »

I would surmise that you're one of those bitter old women who had some bad experiences with men in her past. Your bitterness and resentment results in a hatred of men, you interpret men's actions in the worst light possible. Deep down you don't love yourself, so in the past when men only wanted sex and not a relationship it made you bitter that you couldn't find the love to fill your empty soul.

Then you surmise completely wrong. And the rest of you post couldn't be more wrong either.

But I don't have to defend myself or my relationships with men (and by men I don't just mean my husband but also my father, brothers, son, nephews, platonic male friends, co-workers etc) and I have no intention of doing so.

Its sad you really find it so hard to accept that what happened here was completely and 100% this boy's fault, and that to defend him, you have to attack a 17 year old, completely innocent girl.

If anything, what he needs is a decent man who knows right from wrong to mentor him.

LenWoods

Next dogs will be put down for trying to hump a leg

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

I can see where both parties are coming from. Ultimately it doesn't look like it should be before the court. This isn't a sexual crime.

ohnonotgmail

RandomName2 wrote: »

Ok



But why? Physical contact doens't need to be sexual in nature for it to consittue sexual assault, why not verbal interaction. She may have felt threatened by him continually accosting her in such a manner, does that not merit the title of assault, then?



lolz rofl Boggles, that totes 100% merits facepalm. LMGTFY, answer = no.

Cop onto yourself and improve your posting decorum Boggles. Pretending to be too stupid to understand hypothetical scenarios in a failed attempt to portray another poster as weird is unbecoming, and highlights your entire position to be as sexist as I was making it out to be.

Given how many posters here have an issue understanding an actual case perhaps you should concentrate on understanding actual cases before trying your hand at hypotheticals.

joseywhales

LenWoods wrote: »

Next dogs will be put down for trying to hump a leg

but it wasn't even close to that from what I read, we can't be convicting people because of what we think their motives are without any evidence. And I don't think "if I hadn't moved he would have touched my breast" works as evidence either, it's an opinion on a hypothetical situation that never came to fruition. I must be missing some facts.

If a man touches a woman's arm without speaking that can constitute sexual assault? Does is follow that when a woman gives consent to being touched on the arm she is also consenting to a sexual encounter? Obviously the law is gender neutral, so if this had been two men, the result would be the same?

I hate myself for reading a daily mail article.

joseywhales

Maybe this kid just had the worst defense barrister in history, I'm confused

AulWan

Skittles10 wrote: »

Never said it wasn't his fault, the fact you are 99% certain he was going for her breast is ridiculous.

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion.

Maybe you're over the top reaction to my post and subsequent attack on my character and relationships is because I hit a nerve and you recognise the maneouver?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Maybe this kid just had the worst defense barrister in history, I'm confused

While the whole situation was "creepy" and I'm not at all convinced it was as innocent as a shy boy freezing, I'm a bit perplexed that it got to the stage of a court finding him guilty of sexual assault, especially given he was essentially a school boy himself at the time- there must have been a better way to deal with this.
I've read about 3 different UK newspaper reports and they're pretty much repeating the same story as the Daily Mail, so there's nothing else to go on but that.

AulWan

Skittles10 wrote: »

Nah, I think you're just a nutcase. Perhaps you're projecting, do you look men in the eyes when you're speaking to them or are you too busy focusing on their crotch.

Pathetic response.

RandomName2

AulWan wrote: »

Did you read my original post on this thread? If you didn't, I'll repeat what I said - he didn't deserve to be convicted of a crime. Given his age, I do think he should have been ordered to attend some kind of mandatory therapy /social awareness /consent classes and maybe be kept on a watchlist for a few years.

Perhaps. I think watch list sounds a touch extreme, but some intervention to tell him that his behavior wasn't appropriate and a warning against any inclination of his to potentially escalate his behavior would both have been sensible enough approaches

AulWan wrote: »

But what disturbs me about this thread is the number of posters who came in all guns blazing for a 17 year old girl and how they believed she didn't even have grounds to make a complaint. That is truly disturbing.

I think her calling the police was a bit extreme, but there is no inherent fault in that. People may make a complaint to the police whatever they like, provided they don't provide false testimony (which she didn't). The fault lies with the prosecution in this case.

AulWan wrote: »

She and her feelings and how this effected her did not even appear to register. Their attitude is poor guy, she should have simply accepted his unwanted advances, brushed it off and not reported it.

As I keep saying, it's not one or the other. You can say 'poor guy'. It is 'poor guy'. That doesn't mean that one has to trash the girl in this case. Most people like to make all issues binary, but they generally are more complicated than that.

AulWan wrote: »

I'm 99% sure what happened here is he went for her breast and she deflected this by turning her shoulder towards him so his hand landed on her arm. I'm sure many, many women would be familiar with that particular evasive action.

Remember, it was his actions that put him where he is today, not hers.

That's true.

If Eric Garner hadn't been illegally selling cigarettes he wouldn't have been killed by police officers.

RandomName2

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Given how many posters here have an issue understanding an actual case perhaps you should concentrate on understanding actual cases before trying your hand at hypotheticals.

Actual case



Sorry, were you saying something? I'm not sure, there were words in your response, but nothing of substance, merely noise. You disagree with me, which was enough to get the thumbs up from Boggles anyway. Talking of..

joseywhales

Was this kid convicted for touching an arm without permission or for being weird and unnattractive?

I am guilty of hundred of assaults if the former is true

I cant help but feel that the victim was very stressed about admission to oxford, like it really dominates the testimony, I wonder if these heightened stress levels contributed to the trauma she felt more than the encounter itself.

ohnonotgmail

RandomName2 wrote: »

Actual case



Sorry, were you saying something? I'm not sure, there were words in your response, but nothing of substance, merely noise. You disagree with me, which was enough to get the thumbs up from Boggles anyway.

i was saying something.i was saying that posters here, you included are talking about a case you dont understand.

RandomName2 wrote: »

She rang the police and I assume pressed charges about a class mate for briefly touching her waist. Granted he ran off when he did it but she could have tried contacting him to ask him to not do it again. He's far from blameless, he acted in a really weird and slightly creepy manner.

She did ask him not to do it again when he touched her the first time. He came back later and touched her again. this is when he touched her on the waist. how many times does she need to say no?

RandomName2

Boggles wrote: »

No

So why are words not sexual assault, but waist touching is. Genuine question. If the words were sexual in nature, would that be sexual assault? If not, why not.

Boggles wrote: »

Everything okay?

If you don't want to be criticized for lolz speak, or for attacking posters and not their points, you should probably desist from both.

Boggles wrote: »

It is extremely weird and quite arbitrary just to throw random moot examples into the mix. Something which you have consistently done since you arrived.


What if he touched a penguin, who gives a fúck. It's not relevant to what happened.

These are not random nor are they moot. These get to the very core of the matter. Is the penalty based entirely on him being a man, and her being a woman? I think we both know the answer here, which is why you dodge the question.

Boggles wrote: »

What's your problem with just dealing with the facts we know of this particular case without going down your bizarre rabbit holes and off on silly irrelevant tangents?

The facts are that a young man in school was convicted of sexual assault for touching a female class mate on the waist in broad daylight. You agree with this, yet you cannot defend it.

Boggles wrote: »

You are not that insecure are you?

Is that what this is?

Boggles, really, I keep telling you that you that you can't attack posters like this. This is not socially acceptable behavior.

ohnonotgmail

RandomName2 wrote: »

So why are words not sexual assault, but waist touching is. Genuine question. If the words were sexual in nature, would that be sexual assault? If not, why not.

somebody already posted the legal definition of sexual assault used in the UK.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Seems pretty straightforward -


Sexual assault

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b)the touching is sexual,

(c)B does not consent to the touching, and

(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.


Source: Sexual Offences Act 2003, UK Legislation

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

Well, we're all entitled to our opinion.

Maybe you're over the top reaction to my post and subsequent attack on my character and relationships is because I hit a nerve and you recognise the maneouver?

That's a very self serving hypothesis.

I'm a little bit shocked you have a husband by the way. I honestly get a very immature vibe off your posts.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

She did ask him not to do it again when he touched her the first time. He came back later and touched her again. this is when he touched her on the waist. how many times does she need to say no?

Its not sexual assault. As much as people are trying it as its absurd that the waist and arm is now seen as sexual assault.

And the whole would have gone for the boob argument is absurd as it cannot be in anyway proven.