Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

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.

a magistrate who heard all the evidence decided otherwise.

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

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.

I have a 24 year old son too.

I wouldn't like to say what vibes I get off your posts. It would be impolite.

Boggles

RandomName2 wrote: »

So why are words not sexual assault

Who said they weren't?

Your example was clear, I answered on the back of your example.

Again, a weird tangent.

This guy did not speak.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

I didn't know what you were banging on about, for second I thought you had a stroke. It was legitimate concern.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

You may think they do, but they don't, that is in a nutshell your problem.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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.

Well no. The facts are he was convicted on 2 counts of sexual assault, the 1st one being opportunistic the second being premeditated.

Why would I defend him?

He got his clear warning the first time, he went back for more. Yellow card for stupidity, no one to blame but himself.

RandomName2 wrote: »

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

Relax, it's not like I stalked you and touched your waist for 3 seconds.

All though you wouldn't have a problem with that would you?

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

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.

Hang on. You think it isn't sexual assault. That doesn't mean it isn't sexual assault.

You aware of the stark difference in those statements, right?

UK legislation backed up by case law says it most definitely can be.

So my question is, on which grounds have you the confidence or what qualifies you to test criminal law in another country?

Basically you are saying this is an unsafe conviction based on the law.

So please by all means, show your work?

Ironicname

Boggles wrote:

It would be no harm if he was placed on a register.

You think he should be on the same sexual offenders register as rapists and paedophiles?

you are absolutely insane.

RandomName2

Boggles wrote: »

Who said they weren't?

Your example was clear, I answered on the back of your example.

Again, a weird tangent.

I'd be inclined to ask you if you think someone should be convicted for sexual assault for saying things that offends or make someone feels insecure, but you make all of this torturous by saying 'why are you being weird by bringing this irrelevant stuff up.' Your tiresomeness has won out, here.

Boggles wrote: »

I didn't know what you were banging on about, for second I thought you had a stroke. It was legitimate concern.

Oh that makes sense, because there is significant documentation to show that people with strokes are known for sarcastically disparaging online forum posters' writing styles. Call the ambulance, it's happening again!

Boggles wrote: »

Why would I defend him?

Okay, I'm out. I honestly don't know if you were unable to read my post correctly, or you're just pretending. Either way it augurs poorly for the discussion.

Boggles wrote: »

All though you wouldn't have a problem with that would you?

This is the absolute cherry on top. It actually deserves to be framed.

joseywhales

(b)the touching is sexual

where is the evidence for this?

Boggles

RandomName2 wrote: »

Okay, I'm out.

Boggles

WarrenBuffett wrote: »

For someone who professes to have such concerns for the "trauma" inflicted on this girl, you seem to be quite keen to dish out insults. This doesn't really fit with the image your trying to sell. Deep down I think you are resentful that women were never interested in you, they only ever really saw as a friend. You resent any men persuing women, not just men such as this guy who is inept. I reckon it boils your blood when you see men having strings of one stands with attractive women. You know that attractive women have no interest in casual sex with you. So in order to not feel like a failure you seek to dismiss the world of hook ups.

:pac::pac::pac:

joseywhales

wtf lol, is that from the little book of poisonous opinions

Infini

See thread,

Opens Thread,

See link to the Daily Fail,

*Dramatic Bull**** Publication Ahead*

Closes thread.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Hang on. You think it isn't sexual assault. That doesn't mean it isn't sexual assault.

You aware of the stark difference in those statements, right?

UK legislation backed up by case law says it most definitely can be.

So my question is, on which grounds have you the confidence or what qualifies you to test criminal law in another country?

Basically you are saying this is an unsafe conviction based on the law.

So please by all means, show your work?

:rolleyes:

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

I have a 24 year old son too.

I wouldn't like to say what vibes I get off your posts. It would be impolite.

I personally don't believe you, but, go on, tell me your incredibly insightful thoughts on my posts in this thread.



It's not the 1500s anymore

If me fish and chips were wrapped in a copy of the Daily Mail I'd bin the whole lot.

If you read about the case from a reputable source you'll see that it's not as innocuous as being made out in OP and the young wan had reason to feel uncomfortable. He certainly behaved strangely.

How was she to distinguish him from a serious threat especially considering that it wasn't just one encounter?

Given the first encounter hadn't gone well, why would the lad think about trying a second time in an isolated area? He's awkward socially, not mentally impaired.

He behaved bizarrely on two occasions, she had every reason to feel uncomfortable, frightened, anxious.

He volunteered in a charity shop, therefore has some level of understanding about what is and isn't appropriate.

You'd think this fella had just fallen out of a wormhole from 12,000BC the way some of you are carrying on, dismissing the young wan out of hand.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

If me fish and chips were wrapped in a copy of the Daily Mail I'd bin the whole lot.

If you read about the case from a reputable source you'll see that it's not as innocuous as being made out in OP and the young wan had reason to feel uncomfortable. He certainly behaved strangely.

How was she to distinction him from a serious threat especially considering that it wasn't just one encounter?

Given the first encounter hadn't gone well, why would the lad think about trying a second time in an isolated area? He's awkward socially, not mentally impaired.

He behaved bizarrely on two occasions, she had every reason to feel uncomfortable, frightened, anxious.

He volunteered in a charity shop, therefore has some level of understanding about what is and isn't appropriate.

You'd think this fella had just fallen out of a wormhole from 12,000BC the way some of you are carrying on, dismissing the young wan out of hand.

do you have a link to something written by a proper journalist?

joseywhales

I am not dismissing her for feeling uncomfortable, I would feel uncomfortable but I don't understand how they proved that the touching was sexual in nature, without the underlying assumption that a boy wants to have sex with a girl.

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I personally don't believe you, but, go on, tell me your incredibly insightful thoughts on my posts in this thread.

It's not the 1500s anymore

Have you ever heard the saying, "you're opinion of me is none of my business"?
Believe what you want. Or not.

I can't remember all you posts on this thread, and I didn't get into this to get dragged into a scoring match with another poster - it has nothing to do with the thread.

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

Have you ever heard the saying, "you're opinion of me is none of my business"?
Believe what you want. Or not.

I can't remember all you posts on this thread, and I didn't get into this to get dragged into a scoring match with another poster - it has nothing to do with the thread.

It's hard to take the high ground when you already insinuated something 'impolite'.



I find it interesting that the most fervent supporters of the conviction are showing quite interesting toxic behaviour. (gaslighting being one of them.)


Carry on.

Drifter50

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.

Goodness me, some of your opinions are bizarre. Where did I say or mention anything about treating women like a piece of meat.
Now I remember, I had an exchange with you on another thread concerning rural people living in fear of being attacked where we were discussing my right to use whatever force necessary including discharging my legally held firearm to defend myself and my property against intruders and attackers. You thought I should ask them what they are doing and invite them in for a cup of tea. Here you want to dispatch this young man to be punished for what you agree is an assault at the lower end of the spectrum if that, but yet you consider defending myself and my property as way too excessive.

Like I say, bizarre

AulWan

I don't recall expressing anything like that opinion at all, (I never told you to invite anyone in for tea, don't be ridiculous) but it wouldn't surprise me if that is the bizarre way (to use your choice of term) that you have chosen to interpret something that was said, rather than what was actually said.

No matter, it's considered extremely bad form to carry things from one thread to another, especially when it's sole purpose is an attempt at misrepresentation or to make a personal attack. When someone resorts to that kind of behaviour, that's when you know the poster has no debate worth having left.

El_Duderino 09

joseywhales wrote: »

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

Conviction in this case appears to be a fair application of the law. So probably.

If it wouldn't then the sensible course of action would be lobby the judicial system to also take seriously lower-end sexual assaults against men.

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

a magistrate who heard all the evidence decided otherwise.

Why is it that you accept a ruling when it suits you, but when someone is found not guilty of rape (a rugby player perhaps), you still find a way to not believe them to be innocent.

Ironicname

Infini wrote:

See thread,

Infini wrote:

Opens Thread,

Infini wrote:

See link to the Daily Fail,

Infini wrote:

*Dramatic Bull**** Publication Ahead*

Infini wrote:

Closes thread.

You forgot the bit where you got involved just so you could say how you weren't going to get involved because of a newspaper you don't like.

You also forgot to put in that you wanted to add your brilliant quip. You called it daily fail. That's good cos it rhymes with daily mail.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Conviction in this case appears to be a fair application of the law. So probably.

If it wouldn't then the sensible course of action would be lobby the judicial system to also take seriously lower-end sexual assaults against men.

I dunno, el dude, I do take issue with the presumption that he was going to grab her breast. It does have a connontation that the man wants sex, but I'm not sure the same would be true if the roles were reversed.



As I've said earlier, women touch each other's bodies all the time and working with women is pretty much being petted constantly.


But I actually agree with you! :eek:



This is a case where there needs to be a lobby, but I'd argue that it would be pretty bad if the roles were the same reversed. It would all go back to the days of a kind of segregration.

Drifter50

AulWan wrote: »

I don't recall expressing anything like that opinion at all, (I never told you to invite anyone in for tea, don't be ridiculous) but it wouldn't surprise me if that is the bizarre way (to use your choice of term) that you have chosen to interpret something that was said, rather than what was actually said.

No matter, it's considered extremely bad form to carry things from one thread to another, especially when it's sole purpose is an attempt at misrepresentation or to make a personal attack. When someone resorts to that kind of behaviour, that's when you know the poster has no debate worth having left.

I`ve quoted you above in 328 where you referred to my posts and others of having the attitude of treating women like pieces of meat

How and ever, if you consider I made a personal attack on you, I apologise, it was not my intention and I withdraw from the couple of threads I share with you.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I dunno, el dude, I do take issue with the presumption that he was going to grab her breast. It does have a connontation that the man wants sex, but I'm not sure the same would be true if the roles were reversed.



As I've said earlier, women touch each other's bodies all the time and working with women is pretty much being petted constantly.


But I actually agree with you! :eek:



This is a case where there needs to be a lobby, but I'd argue that it would be pretty bad if the roles were the same reversed. It would all go back to the days of a kind of segregration.

There's an interesting thing at play. When a judge rules guilty or not guilty, it doesn't mean they "believe" all of one sides arguments and disbelieves all the other side's arguments. So the judge didn't necessarily disbelieve the guy was socially awkward and trying to make a "friend" of one kind or another. Not did the judge necessarily believe the guy was reaching for her bread to sexually assault her. The judge ruled that on the balance of evidence, the crime had been committed.

Boggles

Here is the original article.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/touching-teenage-girl-way-home-17061816

The Daily Mail left out a couple of important bits.

Namely she did report the first incident to the police after she heard of similar incidents happening to others.

I had reported the previous incident to the police to days before hand as it had been going around that other incidents had occurred and I thought I could give more evidence, and then it happened again. It came up on a local Facebook group chat.

AulWan

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

As I've said earlier, women touch each other's bodies all the time and working with women is pretty much being petted constantly.

Here's my last contribution to this thread, and then I'm out.

There is a very simple thing here that you do not appear to understand about the difference between women touching women and men touching women.

So I'll spell it out for you. When one woman touches another, it doesn't send any red flags up. Rightly or wrongly, women don't usually see being touched by another woman as threatening.

I can't speak for men, but as I understand it most men don't usually feel threatened by women touching them, but if you don't like it, I would encourage you to say so! You absolutely have the same right not to be touched, as a woman should be able to expect.

However, when men do it, the simple truth is women often do feel threatened or scared by it. Especially when it happens in a creepy way, like this young man did to this young woman. We've been conditioned that way, to protect ourselves. And you can thank all those creepy men who treat women like meat (and yes, they do exist) to thank for that conditioned response to what might be an innocent touch, from women.

Its why women go to the bathroom in pairs in Nightclubs. Its why women travel in pairs late at night or carry rape whistles. It's why women carry pepper spray in their handbags. They feel threatened, its as simple as that.

Now, before you all jump down my throat, I know its not all men. But until all the decent men out there start holding those who do act badly accountable, instead of looking for ways to defend them "he was shy and awkward" while making the woman out to be over-reacting hysterically because "it was just her arm, ffs" then you can expect a lot more of the same, because women, especially the younger generation, are no longer willing to put up with it.

Enjoy your Sunday.

Ironicname

God Of Time wrote:

Women get scared when a guy touches them on the arm?

God Of Time wrote:

Imagine being that afraid of men? Mind boggling.

It's amazing. But sure, we are all equal all the same, except that women are scared of men so men should treat women different.

Ironicname

Ben Hampshire wrote:

It's not the responsibility of men to hold other men to account on behalf of women. And a word of advice, if you do want a demographic to do something for you, it's not wise to make sweeping generalisations and insults towards that demographic. Furthermore, if you think women are helpless and need protecting by men perhaps you should challenge feminists who believe that women are equal to men.

Ugh.... Stop mansplaining.