Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

pinkyeye

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Yeah, cursing someone down in an argument isn't exactly a sign of an intelligient argument :P



Sure, I stare into hedges to check out the flowers and berries. It has absolutely no relation to anything in regards to anything tbh so you can relax a little bit as it just caught my eye in the thread

Excuse me if you disaprove of my hobby:rolleyes:

Yes okay, so say we believe you that you stare into hedges all the time admiring the flowers and berries.

Do you then go and turn around and touch a teenage girl coming along the way??

pinkyeye

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Can you debate without name calling?

Differ away. I respect your opinion and your right to have it.

I can’t say the same for you and the cohort here who agree that a touch on the arm( and waist) (yes, TWICE, I’m not forgetting!) is a sexual assault.

Including a court of law.

pinkyeye

Sittingpretty wrote: »

It’s really not necessary for you to repeat what you expect of me. I’m not a half wit, I’m just not saying how high when you say jump. Because I can’t obviously (preempting your comeback).

She’s not a victim. She was touched on the arm and the waist and she was made to feel uncomfortable.

Does not a victim make.

This is going around in circles.

Have fun convincing yourself that a(TWO!) touches on the arm (AND waist! See, I’m not forgetting, aren’t I great) is a legitimate sexual assault.

Except in a court of law?

Reviews and Books Galore

osarusan wrote: »

There was a thread in AH a few years ago about the video that came out of a woman walking around NYC (I think) during which she received an awful lot of comments/attention. In that thread there were a few posters trying to spin a narrative of 'If we can't tell a random woman on the street she has a nice ass, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO?'

And I see the same thing here. If we can't walk up to a girl and wordlessly touch her, then...what are men supposed to do?

We've already had some idiotic posts about how the prohibition of such behaviour effectively leads to the end of society. Some people just love to delude themselves that societal norms, and society itself, is coming to an end.

I think I remember that video. Wasn't there a controversy that they only showed people of color and the creators said they edited out all the white men?

Boggles

Bit more detail.

https://cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/knutsford-teenager-convicted-of-sexual-assaults/

A subsequent examination of his mobile phone revealed a number of deleted text messages that he had sent to a family member.

Within the messages, which were sent on the morning of Thursday 8 November 2018 – just hours after investigating officers had made house-to-house enquiries in the street where he lived – Jamie talked about the incidents.

He wrote: “It wasn’t just one incident but I’m done now. Please I have uni to think about. I was just so lonely.”

A message sent to Griffiths from the family member read: “So you grabbed her butt and then ran immediately?”

It would appear touching girls wasn't his only vice.

During the trial Griffiths was also found guilty of causing criminal damage in relation to an incident at Knutsford High School

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Bit more detail.

https://cheshire.police.uk/news-and-appeals/news/knutsford-teenager-convicted-of-sexual-assaults/



It would appear touching girls wasn't his only vice.

Bit of a confusing article. Was it the teenage boys family or was it the teenage girls family member?



And I'm a little bit confused here. Did he grab her butt or waist or hip or side?

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Bit of a confusing article. Was it the teenage boys family or was it the teenage girls family member?

what difference would that make? he admitted touching her. he's guilty.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

And I'm a little bit confused here. Did he grab her butt or waist or hip or side?

i'm not sure how well up you are on anatomy but all those areas are in very close proximity. and, again, what difference does it make?

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Bit of a confusing article. Was it the teenage boys family or was it the teenage girls family member?

Why would he be texting the girls family?

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

And I'm a little bit confused here. Did he grab her butt or waist or hip or side?

I imagine they are discussing one of the other incidents.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Why would he be texting the girls family?



I imagine they are discussing one of the other incidents.

Maybe they texted him to find out what happened?



The second text reads like something that will be used in court and as it did not specify the family member I was curious.



Possibly. Even though there still is no proof of any other incidents beyond this small boards thread.



Ah well, maybe it's good to give him a bit of warning, but I do not agree with the sexual assault charge as arm, waist and side is within the normal range of tactile touch.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Maybe they texted him to find out what happened?



The second text reads like something that will be used in court and as it did not specify the family member I was curious.



Possibly. Even though there still is no proof of any other incidents beyond this small boards thread.



Ah well, maybe it's good to give him a bit of warning, but I do not agree with the sexual assault charge as arm, waist and side is within the normal range of tactile touch.

not with somebody you dont know, that you have never spoken to, that you just met on the street. assuming the meeting was accidental.

El_Duderino 09

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not with somebody you dont know, that you have never spoken to, that you just met on the street. assuming the meeting was accidental.

This is the important part.

I was out for a work social with colleagues some of whom are mates, last night. Touching happens but it's different between people who are colleagues and those who are friends. Complete strangers are a different level. There isn't really a good reason to touch a stranger unless you're touching them on the arm to get their attention to ask a question or similar

Waiting in an isolated area for a stranger (stalker behaviour) touching them apropos of nothing is not normal touching. Doing it after being told to not do again, is squarely in stalker territory and not OK.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Possibly. Even though there still is no proof of any other incidents beyond this small boards thread.

Of course there is.

He is clearly discussing with a family member (his) another incident where he touched another girl on the "butt". He says there was more than "one incident".

The girl in this incident never claimed that.

She also claimed she reported the first incident on the back of hearing of other incidents in the area.

So yeah multiple incidents in a relative small area. Unless you think there were 2 shy díckheads with the same technique?

Also the quote from the police indicates this wasn't just one or two incidents.

Upon the completion of the trial, Police Constable Lawrence Price said: “Incidents of this nature are rare in the Knutsford area and Griffiths’ actions understandably caused a large amount of concern in the local community.

He was also found guilty of criminal damage.

Wouldn't surprise me if there were other cases pending either.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is the important part.

I was out for a work social with colleagues some of whom are mates, last night. Touching happens but it's different between people who are colleagues and those who are friends. Complete strangers are a different level. There isn't really a good reason to touch a stranger unless you're touching them on the arm to get their attention to ask a question or similar

Waiting in an isolated area for a stranger (stalker behaviour) touching them apropos of nothing is not normal touching. Doing it after being told to not do again, is squarely in stalker territory and not OK.

Not really enough to constitute stalking imo.



Tactile touch is quite cultural and the souther cultures are far more tactile. So, yeah, you can't really describe it as sexual assault as there is no proof it of a sexual nature.



There's something go on in the case, but the judge definetly erred as she charged him for something that could not be proven. (That he was going for breast or that he was getting sexual gratification)

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Not really enough to constitute stalking imo.



Tactile touch is quite cultural and the souther cultures are far more tactile. So, yeah, you can't really describe it as sexual assault as there is no proof it of a sexual nature.



There's something go on in the case, but the judge definetly erred as she charged him for something that could not be proven. (That he was going for breast or that he was getting sexual gratification)

Yes, as I said earlier, stalking is difficult to prove. It appears to have been happening in this case. But that's why they didn't try to charge him with stalking. Instead they successfully charged him with sexual assault for the touching.

Other cultures aren't really relevant to the case as he wasn't charged in those cultures. The point you're missing is that he was living in the UK culture, charge and found guilty in the UK culture.

In case you didn't know, in the UK if you behave like a stalker and touch up young wans, you could end up in trouble.

I mentioned in my last post I was out for a work social. Colleagues and some of whom are also friends. The friends touch each other differently to the ones who are just colleagues. Strangers who aren't even speaking to each other, don't tend to touch al all

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Not really enough to constitute stalking imo.



Tactile touch is quite cultural and the souther cultures are far more tactile.

But not to randomers in the street that they do not know and have never even said hello to. that is what you keep omitting in attempting to normalise his behaviour.

cloudatlas

Boggles wrote: »

He has been found guilty.



Societies fault.

He was only trying to make a friend.

Where I agree that he shouldn’t have been charged I don’t agree that it’s normal to make friends by touching strangers on the waste or on the arm, especially a young school girl I don’t accept that and I’m worried about anyone that thinks that’s okay or normal. Is there another source for this story that isn’t the daily fail?

Boggles

cloudatlas wrote: »

Where I agree that he shouldn’t have been charged

What do you think should have happened someone who stalked and touched multiple girls in isolated areas?

A Ban from screens for a week?

He was 18 not 10, under the law an adult.

He was also found guilty of criminal damage, should he get away with that too?

gormdubhgorm

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.

Attempted armed robbery?

gormdubhgorm

spodoinkle wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7557947/Shy-awkward-student-19-faces-JAIL-sex-assault-conviction.html

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.

Has this kids life been ruined for touching a girls arm? How can she seriously have reported this?

The fella sounds autistic and a bit Shedon-esque (Big Bang Theory) in his approach to people.

I would surmise that the girl is also prone to be overly anxious and dramatic from the sound of things.
But I can understand why she was uncomfortable it, did not occur once but twice with the same fella.

pinkyeye

Tbf, all of these so called "pulling" websites will say to touch a woman's arm to show interest but by that I presume they mean in conversation.

I suppose someone with no social skills might not get that but to then go and do it a second time and go for the waist this time is just mental.

I've often had friends or colleagues touch my arm, that's fine but I don't think I've ever had one touch my waist. It would be really weird if they did, unless you were doing a waltz or something.

Boggles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The fella sounds autistic and a bit Shedon-esque (Big Bang Theory) in his approach to people.

Or you know lets not brand people with autism as creepy pests.

Maybe he was just a creepy pest?

His "shyness" was his defense, that doesn't mean it's a fact.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

What do you think should have happened someone who stalked and touched multiple girls in isolated areas?

A Ban from screens for a week?

He was 18 not 10, under the law an adult.

He was also found guilty of criminal damage, should he get away with that too?

I am shocked nobody else is calling this out. There is no proof other incidents beyond completly leaping ahead in regards to the facts we have.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

But not to randomers in the street that they do not know and have never even said hello to. that is what you keep omitting in attempting to normalise his behaviour.

Less normalize and more not demonize.



Again, the facts of the case should be enough of an argument for or against the conviction, but most of the posters here are adding false/extra/pointless details.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Less normalize and more not demonize.

you have done nothing but attempt to normalise his behaviour by constantly mentioning how normal it is.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Again, the facts of the case should be enough of an argument for or against the conviction, but most of the posters here are adding false/extra/pointless details.

like posters claiming she is hysterical? that is it normal to touch strangers you have not even said hello to? those kind of false details?

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you have done nothing but attempt to normalise his behaviour by constantly mentioning how normal it is.



like posters claiming she is hysterical? that is it normal to touch strangers you have not even said hello to? those kind of false details?

Sure, if you see normalisation as not going along with demonization.



Okay, why do you think touching a woman's waist is sexual assault (and I will add he said arm, and she said side)? Really, there could be an argument, but the overdramatising is laughable.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I am shocked nobody else is calling this out. There is no proof other incidents beyond completly leaping ahead in regards to the facts we have.

It was used as evidence in the trial. You can dismiss it as if it wasn’t used as evidence, but it was.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Sure, if you see normalisation as not going along with demonization.



Okay, why do you think touching a woman's waist is sexual assault (and I will add he said arm, and she said side)? Really, there could be an argument, but the overdramatising is laughable.

what do you suggest his motivation was?

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Okay, why do you think touching a woman's waist is sexual assault (and I will add he said arm, and she said side)? Really, there could be an argument, but the overdramatising is laughable.

I think the magistrate thinks it’s sexual assault. And they’re kinda an expertises the topic so I’ll defer to them.

El_Duderino 09

Japanese Whisky wrote: »

If touching on the arm is sexual assault then 90% of the population are guilty of it.

You think 90% of blokes have done that? Waited in and isolated area, starting into a hedge, touching women without saying anything and walking away? And all after being told not to do it again by the same woman the previous month? You seriously think 90%of men have done this?

El_Duderino 09

Japanese Whisky wrote: »

I think 90% of people, men and women have touched someone on the arm.

Is there something immoral about staring into hedges? People can stare wherever they want.

Yeah. I’m mean, if that all he did then you’d be right. But deconstructing it and pretending anytime people touch it could be sexual assault is a bit daft.

He was probably stalking her, waited for her On a Bridge where she couldn’t get away and then touched her. The context is important. Ignore the context it if you like but you’re not talking about what actually happened.