Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

20Wheel

I find the defendant guilty of being creepy.

That's about it. Give him a map of routes to stick to for a year. A time to be home by. And a number to call if he's traveling outside the zone.
Maybe the odd check in by a social worker.

Prison is not in order and only likely to make him worse. Nor is putting him in the nonce book.

Ironicname

God Of Time wrote:

I'm sure if you lived in third world places like Morrocco or Cologne you'd be wary of men. But in Ireland? Really?

It's beyond parody at this stage

Reviews and Books Galore

Ironicname wrote: »

Ugh.... Stop mansplaining.

Is this a serious post?

Reviews and Books Galore

AulWan wrote: »

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.

Wow. At least your honest about your own sexism.

Ironicname

Reviews and Books Galore wrote:

Is this a serious post?

Not in the slightest. It's all too common these days so I get why you had to ask.

Outlaw Pete

A Police warning for this young man would have sufficed. Have a community police have chat with him and tell him that he needs to respect people's personal space more and try to learn more about visual cues that suggest someone is perhaps not open to being touched. Charging him though is ridiculous. Sign of the times though I feel as there was an actress a few years back that said a guy digitally penetrated her as he walked past her in a train station and despite CCTV footage making it clear that it was an impossibility, he was still charged.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A Police warning for this young man would have sufficed.

How do you know they didn't give him one?

It would appear this young girl wasn't the only recipient of his unique friendship ritual.

20Wheel

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

there was an actress a few years back that said a guy digitally penetrated her as he walked past her in a train station and despite CCTV footage making it clear that it was an impossibility, he was still charged.

I don't know, these smartphone things are pretty sophisticated.

Ironicname

Outlaw Pete wrote:

making it clear that it was an impossibility, he was still charged.

**** man, you need to believe "her". Even if it is proven that they are wrong, they may have perceived themselves to be right so we can not in any way discount their "reality".

Am I doing it right?

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

How do you know they didn't give him one?

Ooh matron.

20Wheel

Boggles wrote: »

How do you know they didn't give him one?

It would appear this young girl wasn't the only recipient of his unique friendship ritual.

Would be kind of ironic though if during the police warning the sergeant grabbed him by the arm.

Listen up son, no more grabbing people by the arm, they may not like it.
Now off you go.

ErnestBorgnine

AulWan wrote: »

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.

And what policing of female bad behaviours are you responsible for?

Ironicname

ErnestBorgnine wrote:

And what policing of female bad behaviours are you responsible for?

Obviously not the "being a condescending hypocrite" officer anyway.

Reviews and Books Galore

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

And what policing of female bad behaviours are you responsible for?

Hopefully false accusations, exaggeration, and victim playing.

Interestingly, the African american community talk about this a little bit and you can find articles about it by searching 'white female tears'.

Most women don't police female behaviour as it can lead to ostracization tbh.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

How do you know they didn't give him one?

It would appear this young girl wasn't the only recipient of his unique friendship ritual.

Proof? Of any kind?

Why are you so obsessed with imagining the 'schoolgirl in trouble' scenario? At least base it on fact rather than gossip and your own exaggeration.

Ironicname

Reviews and Books Galore wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with imagining the 'schoolgirl in trouble' scenario? At least base it on fact rather than gossip and your own exaggeration.

"Young schoolgirl in peril Vs Adult pervert who looks at bushes and then lunges at children's breasts" reads better.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Proof? Of any kind?

Why are you so obsessed with imagining the 'schoolgirl in trouble' scenario? .

Why are you obsessed, full stop?

Was there an incident in your past?

Ironicname

Boggles wrote:

Was there an incident in your past?

Disgusting post. Betrays your virtue signalling and shows you for what you are.

Boggles

Ironicname wrote: »

Disgusting post.

It was a legitimate question given the vitriol he has launched at the victim.

Below is an example of it, it is also an example of a "disgusting post"

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

She does need therapy for her own toxic behaviour and using a guy as an excuse for failing a test.

Really. It sounds harsh but the language in the article is , imo, a sign of a toxic woman. Sorry, but I think it's true.

Ironicname wrote: »

Betrays your virtue signalling and shows you for what you are.

Stupid fúcking imported americanisms. Grow up FFS.

:rolleyes:

Ironicname

Boggles wrote:

Stupid fúcking imported americanisms. Grow up FFS.

No thanks. I can put it I to a colloquial term if you like: it sounds like you are trying to show that your **** doesn't stink and how you are such a "right-on" prick.

Virtue signalling was me trying to be polite.

Boggles

Ironicname wrote: »

No thanks. I can put it I to a colloquial term if you like: it sounds like you are trying to show that your **** doesn't stink and how you are such a "right-on" prick.

Virtue signalling was me trying to be polite.

Ironic Name indeed.

As you were lad.

Ironicname

Boggles wrote:

Stupid fúcking imported americanisms. Grow up FFS.

But then you spoiled it with a disgusting post which betrayed your pretence of being holier than thou.

(I reckon the virtue signalling post got across my point but you just had to add more fuel to the fire)

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

It was a legitimate question given the vitriol he has launched at the victim.

Below is an example of it, it is also an example of a "disgusting post"





Stupid fúcking imported americanisms. Grow up FFS.

:rolleyes:

I'm sure some people will pat you on the back, but it does show a certsin toxic characterisation.

I am giving my opinion in her actions. You are just trying to gaslight/insult based on quite a silly low hanging fruit of percrieved past trauama or something. Its not intelligent or in any way admirable. Its kind of like a dog that oy attacks when it has support, or a common stone thrower in Sharia law.

I'm not really insulted, as its really bizarre, but I imagine you would be the first to attack gay people back in the days when that was seen as 'virtue'.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I'm sure some people will pat you on the back, but it does show a certsin toxic characterisation.

I am giving my opinion in her actions. You are just trying to gaslight/insult based on quite a silly low hanging fruit of percrieved past trauama or something. Its not intelligent or in any way admirable. Its kind of like a dog that oy attacks when it has support, or a common stone thrower in Sharia law.

I'm not really insulted, as its really bizarre, but I imagine you would be the first to attack gay people back in the days when that was seen as 'virtue'.

her actions involved innocently walking down a road and reporting 2 incidents of a man touching her inappropriately to the police. so what exactly has she done wrong?

Ironicname

ohnonotgmail wrote:

her actions involved innocently walking down a road and reporting 2 incidents of a man touching her inappropriately to the police. so what exactly has she done wrong?

Touching someone on the arm twice is no reason to be placed on a sexual offenders list.

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

Touching someone on the arm twice is no reason to be placed on a sexual offenders list.

That doesn't answer the question you quoted. The question was "what did she do wrong?"

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

her actions involved innocently walking down a road and reporting 2 incidents of a man touching her inappropriately to the police. so what exactly has she done wrong?

Wrongs a strong word, but thank you for latching onto that and disregarding everything else that I said P.S. He's a schoolboy.



But, she didn't really do anything wrong tbh. It was well within her right to report it to the police (and I don't blame her for that in any shape or form) and she's a teenager so the melodrama* isn't a big deal. She didn't even make a false accusation.



But, the magistrate is the one who is the problem here.


*And, I'm sorry, but if you actually think she was thruamatised and that this had nothing to do with oxford, then you really are buying it at face value.

RandomName2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question you quoted. The question was "what did she do wrong?"

I'll ask you (as Boggles just does Boggles all the time)

If the roles had been reversed, had she touched a male classmate twice without invitation, would you consider it a little on the extreme side for him to go to the police? Much more seriously, would you consider it inappropriate for her to be convicted of sexual assault?

I'd be genuinely interested to hear the reason for your answer if you think not.

Although I will highlight here that in my opinion the main fault here lay with the prosecution, and not either of the teenagers' actions in this case.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I am giving my opinion in her actions.

She didn't stalk or touch anyone. She was the victim of a crime. But even if you believe his BS version of events that he was stalking and touching young girls to make friends at the very least she was the victim of some very creepy and weird behavior.

To call her a "toxic woman" because of the creepy actions of someone else is pretty extreme to say the least.

El_Duderino 09

RandomName2 wrote: »

I'll ask you (as Boggles just does Boggles all the time)

If the roles had been reversed, had she touched a male classmate twice without invitation, would you consider it a little on the extreme side for him to go to the police? Much more seriously, would you consider it inappropriate for her to be convicted of sexual assault?

Depends on the Context.

If she tapped Jimmy on the arm to ask if he knows what time the bus is coming, then yes it would be extreme to call the police.

If she had form for potential stalking behaviours, waited for Jimmy to be isolated on a bridge and approached him without saying anything, touched him and walked away and this was the second time it happened, then no. Going to the police seems fairly reasonable.

If the police have had a few reports like this in the past and his behaviour appears to be stalking, then yes it is reasonable to prosecute.

I think the urge to spin this as a "poor men" story, is unfortunate. There are loads of factors that we don't know. We don't know how "socially awkward" he is -read doesn't understand social Interactions. We don't know if he has been exhibiting stalker behaviour, we don't know his risk level, we don't know his attitudes to others (which could well be skewed by his lack of understanding social interactions).

I presume the Crown Prosecution Service had the best overview of the relevant factors. But I acknowledge they can make mistakes.

What do you think?