Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

ohnonotgmail

Japanese Whisky wrote: »

I made a simple statement that if touching on the arm is sexual assault then 90% of people are guilty of it.

I never said that is all the accused did.

so your statement was irrelevant then

ohnonotgmail

Japanese Whisky wrote: »

If someone thinks it's irrelevant then they are perfectly free to ignore the statement and carry on with their lives.

I reiterate, if touching someone on the arm is sexual assault then 90% of people are guilty of it.

you missed the bit about the hedge and bridge and them being strangers. prosecutions are decided on all the facts not just the one you decided to cherry pick.

ohnonotgmail

Japanese Whisky wrote: »

No I didn't.

so you didnt miss it you just decided to ignore it? good to know.

cloudatlas

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?

Multiple girls? I don’t think I’ve read the whole story and I didn’t think he touched them on their private parts otherwise of course I’d say he should be given a heavy sentence.

Boggles

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.

Of course there is, unless you think the "Toxic Woman" perjured herself in court?

Boggles

cloudatlas wrote: »

Multiple girls? I don’t think I’ve read the whole story and I didn’t think he touched them on their private parts otherwise of course I’d say he should be given a heavy sentence.

It's not 1982 anymore.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Of course there is, unless you think the "Toxic Woman" perjured herself in court?

"Rolls eyes"

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

It's not 1982 anymore.

?

How old are you BTW? 1982 isn't that long ago.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

?
How old are you BTW?

Old enough to know a victim of crime especially one of a sexual nature should never be called Toxic.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

1982 isn't that long ago.

Sure some of us are still living there.

"Roll Eyes"

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Old enough to know a victim of crime especially one of a sexual nature should never be called Toxic.

Why?

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Why?

If you are asking that question you don't have the ability to understand the answer.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

If you are asking that question you don't have the ability to understand the answer.

That's nice. Why don't you try and explain your higher intelligience by answering the question?

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

That's nice. Why don't you try and explain your higher intelligience by answering the question?

There is no set IQ prerequisite to understand why you would not call a victim of assault Toxic.

Maybe it would be better if you explained to me what is confusing you about it?

Or maybe you think all victims of crime are toxic, someone gets mugged and are pretty shaken over it, are they toxic?

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

There is no set IQ prerequisite to understand why you would not call a victim of assault Toxic.

Maybe it would be better if you explained to me what is confusing you about it?

Or maybe you think all victims of crime are toxic, someone gets mugged and are pretty shaken over it, are they toxic?

It's interesting that you equate it to mugging. Why not murder, or torture or a beating?



Eh, I base it on my own opinion and sexual assault doesn't lessen someone and shouldn't devalue them in the public eye.



And I still don't believe this is sexual assault.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Eh, I base it on my own opinion and sexual assault doesn't lessen someone and shouldn't devalue them in the public eye.

Are you talking about the perpetrator or the victim?

Usually I'd guess the victim but considering you have called her Toxic and have tried exhaustively to exonerate the perpetrator who has been convicted of multiple crimes, I'm not so sure.

Reviews and Books Galore

Boggles wrote: »

Are you talking about the perpetrator or the victim?

Usually I'd guess the victim but considering you have called her Toxic and have tried exhaustively to exonerate the perpetrator who has been convicted of multiple crimes, I'm not so sure.

Don't travel around latin america if you are a man afraid of getting his waist touched by the opposite sex.



I am talking about the victim.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Don't travel around latin america if you are a man afraid of getting his waist touched by the opposite sex.

how is this relevant?

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I am talking about the victim.

doesn't lessen someone and shouldn't devalue them in the public eye.

nobody suggested it did. well except you who decided she was toxic.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Don't travel around latin america if you are a man afraid of getting his waist touched by the opposite sex.

Da Fuq? Ah I won't thanks.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I am talking about the victim.

Really?

So what in particular about this 17 year old girl at the time, who is a victim of sexual assault do you find toxic?

Now I know you don't think she is, but that's moot.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how is this relevant?





nobody suggested it did. well except you who decided she was toxic.

Pointing out a cultural difference tbh and highlighting the gender issue at play.



Eh, this is getting silly. Goodbye.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Pointing out a cultural difference tbh and highlighting the gender issue at play.



Eh, this is getting silly. Goodbye.

the only issue here is creepy mccreeperson deciding to go around touching people he doesn't know. oh and people trying to normalise what he did. the "well it is fine in other parts of the world" argument just doesn't wash.

gormdubhgorm

Boggles wrote: »

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.

Neither is it a fact that he was just 'a creepy pest.'

Judging solely by the article he does seem to have autistic traits -

Difficulty understanding other people’s feelings, reactions, and nonverbal cues - yes
Unusual or inappropriate body language, gestures - yes
Difficulty or failure to make friends with people the same age - yes

Nowhere in my post did I brand the fella as 'a creepy pest'. If anything I was giving him the benefit of doubt. As he clearly has issues.

Boggles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Neither is it a fact that he was solely, just a creepy pest. Judging solely by the article he does seem to have autistic traits.
Nowhere in my post did I brand the fella as a creepy pest. If anything I was giving him the benefit of doubt. As he clearly has issues.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest from the article that he is autistic, apart from "his defense" that the reason he was stalking and touching young girls is because of "shyness"

As far as I know sexual assault isn't a side effect of autism and shyness does not inhibit ones ability to discern from right or wrong.

But if there was even a hint that this lad was autistic his defense team would have produced a report stating it.

gormdubhgorm

Boggles wrote: »

There is absolutely nothing to suggest from the article that he is autistic, apart from "his defense" that the reason he was stalking and touching young girls is because of "shyness"

As far as I know sexual assault isn't a side effect of autism and shyness does not inhibit ones ability to discern from right or wrong.

But if there was even a hint that this lad was autistic his defense team would have produced a report stating it.

Fair point, but he may not have been diagnosed?
Also why is it 'sexual' assault?

Boggles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Fair point, but he may not have been diagnosed?
Also why is it 'sexual' assault?
Is the arm an erogenous zone?
Really?

His defense if he was would have had it diagnosed. Now maybe they didn't and that can be a basis of an appeal, but the defense was so ludicrous I'd be shocked if that avenue had not been explored.

It doesn't have to be an "erogenous zone", it wasn't just the arm either. Also context is pretty important.

Primarily though it's sexual assault in England because that is the law, a law enforced by the Police, backed up by the CPS and adjudicated on by the magistrate backed up by past precedent and high court definitions.

gormdubhgorm

Boggles wrote: »

His defense if he was would have had it diagnosed. Now maybe they didn't and that can be a basis of an appeal, but the defense was so ludicrous I'd be shocked if that avenue had not been explored.

It doesn't have to be an "erogenous zone", it wasn't just the arm either. Also context is pretty important.

Primarily though it's sexual assault in England because that is the law, a law enforced by the Police, backed up by the CPS and adjudicated on by the magistrate backed up by past precedent and high court definitions.

I am aware of the latter part of your post, but I believe the judge/magistrates have interpreted the law incorrectly in this case.
It should have left it at harassment or assault.
Also the fact his defence was silly in your eyes based with his actions and body language (as testified by the plaintiff) it is clear that is not an average person.
Also the defendant may not want it known, that he has autism or some form of societal anxiety disorder.

Boggles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am aware of the latter part of your post, but I believe the judge has interpreted the law incorrectly in this case.
She should have left it at harassment or assault.

It's not up to her to leave it at anything.

She can either convict or not convict or throw it out. The charges are brought by the CPS.

There was 3 charges against him that we know of, 2 of sexual assault one on criminal damage.

He was found guilty on all the 3, the prosecution proved there case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now he is due to be sentenced next week, if it is reported on we should understand a lot more, including if he wishes to appeal I imagine.

Boggles

AvocadoSunrise wrote: »

You seem happy to conclude that he is a "predator" based on the article, there is just as much to suggest he is autistic as a predator. But that doesn't suit your agenda. You are insecure that you've never been able to attract women you truly desire, you know you don't even have the confidence to approach women. So when a clueless idiot plucks up the courage to approach a woman it makes your blood boil. It highlights your own inadequacies with the opposite sex.

Oh Hi again.

How have you been?

I imagined you would have exhausted every free email out there at this stage, guess I was wrong.

gormdubhgorm

Boggles wrote: »

It's not up to her to leave it at anything.

She can either convict or not convict or throw it out. The charges are brought by the CPS.

There was 3 charges against him that we know of, 2 of sexual assault one on criminal damage.

He was found guilty on all the 3, the prosecution proved there case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now he is due to be sentenced next week, if it is reported on we should understand a lot more, including if he wishes to appeal I imagine.

Oh right in that case I think it should be appealed.
It is not as if you can give a fella a charge of sexual assault even on the timid end of the scale, without people assuming the worst.

From reading it they inferred that his second approach indicated motives of a sexual nature. That was all they had to go on. It sounds very flimsy to me.

"We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual...
The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second"

I don't know what you think?
I mean in Ireland it could be covered under the non-fatal offences of the person act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/10/enacted/en/html

Boggles

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Oh right in that case I think it should be appealed.
It is not as if you can give a fella a charge of sexual assault even on the timid end of the scale, without people assuming the worst.

From reading it they inferred that his second approach indicated motives of a sexual nature. That was all they had to go on. It sounds very flimsy to me.
I don't know what you think?

What would be an alternative acceptable nature of stalking and touching young girls in isolated areas?

gormdubhgorm

Boggles wrote: »

What would be an alternative acceptable nature of stalking and touching young girls in isolated areas?

Again, you are assuming the fella has a normal thought process.
I believe he does not and does not understand the nuance of societal interaction.
Not even just from what he said, but the way the plaintiff described him.
Which was described without embellishment according to Magistrates:

'The complainant's evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment.

--

Also remember those that made judgement on him were not from the medical profession, but from the legal profession.