Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

Midster

Ok so let’s turn things back a bit here.

Who in this conversation thinks the punishment fits the so called crime.

I’d like to know

Personally, my view is the punishment was to harsh.

That’s my stance

Salary Negotiator

Midster wrote: »

Ok so let’s turn things back a bit here.

Who in this conversation thinks the punishment fits the so called crime.

I’d like to know

Personally, my view is the punishment was to harsh.

That’s my stance

What punishment?

Midster

10 year sentence

El_Duderino 09

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

What punishment?

The 10 years in prison and the declaration that all men are monsters and the subsequent ruling that men and women are now going to be moved from room to room by robot to make sure they don't interact.

El_Duderino 09

Midster wrote: »

10 year sentence

LOL. Didn't read the article before getting outraged.

Reviews and Books Galore

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

What punishment?

Being registered in a sex offenders list and having his career and future life ruined.

But, the schoolgirl was thraumatised into not being able to take her mock exam. Which made her fail the real exam due to the trauma.

She mentioned it in the article a few times.

One eyed Jack

Midster wrote: »

10 year sentence

He hasn’t been sentenced yet, and the 10 years mentioned in the thread title and in the Daily Mail article is the maximum possible sentence that can be handed down in the Crown Courts for sexual assault of a far more serious nature. This guy was tried in the lower Magistrates Court where the maximum sentences are more like community service - reformation and restitution as opposed to incarceration.

Salary Negotiator

Midster wrote: »

10 year sentence

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Being registered in a sex offenders list and having his career and future life ruined.

But, the schoolgirl was thraumatised into not being able to take her mock exam. Which made her fail the real exam due to the trauma.

She mentioned it in the article a few times.

Ah lads come on, read the article properly.

He hasn't been sentenced yet, nor has he been placed on the sex offenders register. We don't know what his punishment is going to be.

It's a magistrates court too, so the sentence is unlikely to be custodial more likely to be some sort of community service or even mandated consent classes.

Eric Cartman

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Ah lads come on, read the article properly.

He hasn't been sentenced yet, nor has he been placed on the sex offenders register. We don't know what his punishment is going to be.

It's a magistrates court too, so the sentence is unlikely to be custodial more likely to be some sort of community service or even mandated consent classes.

I think most of us understand that. That it even ended up in a court or that there is a facility for that to happen is the worrying part

Reviews and Books Galore

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Ah lads come on, read the article properly.

He hasn't been sentenced yet, nor has he been placed on the sex offenders register. We don't know what his punishment is going to be.

It's a magistrates court too, so the sentence is unlikely to be custodial more likely to be some sort of community service or even mandated consent classes.

quote="Salary Negotiator;111483375"]Ah lads come on, read the article properly.

He hasn't been sentenced yet, nor has he been placed on the sex offenders register. We don't know what his punishment is going to be.

It's a magistrates court too, so the sentence is unlikely to be custodial more likely to be some sort of community service or even mandated consent classes.[/quote]

I'd be shocked if he wasn't placed on a sex offenders list as he has been found guilty of sexual assault.

Tbh, its absurd

hetuzozaho

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think most of us understand that. That it even ended up in a court or that there is a facility for that to happen is the worrying part

You millennials worry too much.

Salary Negotiator

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think most of us understand that. That it even ended up in a court or that there is a facility for that to happen is the worrying part

Most, maybe. Some definitely don't.

Someone else claimed it happened in a nightclub. So some people just read the headline and start posting.

I'm not that surprised it went to court but I am surprised that the charge was sexual assault. It seems he was convicted more for his intent than the outcome of his actions and that doesn't sit right with me.

The complainant's evidence was very clear, logical and without embellishment. We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.
Had she not taken evasive action the assault was likely to have been even more serious. The first assault can be recognised as opportunistic however there is more evidence of premeditation in the second.

Source

One eyed Jack

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think most of us understand that. That it even ended up in a court or that there is a facility for that to happen is the worrying part

I think it’s a good thing that the facility is there for anyone to make a complaint to the authorities when another persons behaviour has caused them distress. The complainant in this case had already made it clear to the guy she wanted nothing to do with him, yet he still persisted. I don’t think anyone wants the expense and the publicity of going to court, but he has that right to plead not guilty, and then he has to accept it when his behaviour is shown to him to have been unreasonable. The victim in this case didn’t ask for any of it, but because the facility exists where the accused has a right to the presumption of innocence, then the victim also gets dragged through a trial she didn’t want either, but has to accept that’s the way the judicial system works.

One eyed Jack

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Most, maybe. Some definitely don't.

Someone else claimed it happened in a nightclub. So some people just read the headline and start posting.

I'm not that surprised it went to court but I am surprised that the charge was sexual assault. It seems he was convicted more for his intent than the outcome of his actions and that doesn't sit right with me.

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

Salary Negotiator

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

Most, maybe. Some definitely don't.

Someone else claimed it happened in a nightclub. So some people just read the headline and start posting.

Not sure if this is aimed at me or not, I did mention a nightclub as that's where Midster's mate was when he whipped out the bould fella and approached someone.

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

I'm not that surprised it went to court but I am surprised that the charge was sexual assault. It seems he was convicted more for his intent than the outcome of his actions and that doesn't sit right with me.

I'm sorry, but.....no. You cannot charge someone based on the outcome, the intent is part and parcel of the crime. If someone shoots at you with a rifle, but misses......no harm, no foul?

Fattybojangles

More hyperbole from the incels and angry virgins on here he wont get 10 years

Boggles

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I think most of us understand that. That it even ended up in a court or that there is a facility for that to happen is the worrying part

Why would anyone be worried about a young man ending up in court for touching a young girl in a very unsettling and creepy way?

I will rephrase, why would anyone not on a register be worried?

Hoboo

Boggles wrote: »

Why would anyone be worried about a young man ending up in court for touching a young girl in a very unsettling and creepy way?

I will rephrase, why would anyone not on a register be worried?

Because courts should be used for cases involving crime, not bs like this. If a girl had touched her on the arm would it end up in court? We are talking about someone being touched on the arm and having the cheek to claim sexual assault. Shes making a mockery of genuine cases.

Boggles

Hoboo wrote: »

Because courts should be used for cases involving crime, not bs like this. If a girl had touched her on the arm would it end up in court? We are talking about someone being touched on the arm and having the cheek to claim sexual assault. Shes making a mockery of genuine cases.

So what you think, young men should just be allowed creepily stalk school girls and touch them for their own gratification unfettered?

AulWan

Hoboo wrote: »

Because courts should be used for cases involving crime, not bs like this. If a girl had touched her on the arm would it end up in court? We are talking about someone being touched on the arm and having the cheek to claim sexual assault. Shes making a mockery of genuine cases.

This is a genuine case. You're totally deflecting from how it happened, where it happened and the fact this was the second time he approached and touched her, after she'd already made it clear the first time she wanted nothing to do with him.

THAT is why it ended up in court.

If he'd heeded her the first time and left her alone, he wouldn't be where he is now.

Salary Negotiator

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not sure if this is aimed at me or not, I did mention a nightclub as that's where Midster's mate was when he whipped out the bould fella and approached someone.



I'm sorry, but.....no. You cannot charge someone based on the outcome, the intent is part and parcel of the crime. If someone shoots at you with a rifle, but misses......no harm, no foul?

No, not directed at you at all.

I understand intent is important but usually there’s a specific crime to cover that. Attempted murder, illegal discharge of a weapon etc.

Reading the definition from one eye jack above the touching has to be sexual for it to be sexual assault, I wonder how that is defined.

BTW I'm not defending him or saying she was wrong to feel how she did. I just think a sexual assault conviction is harsh and comes down to whether the touch was actually sexual or he intended it to be sexual but wasn’t (because his missed her breast).

SexBobomb

Boggles wrote: »

So what you think, young men should just be allowed creepily stalk school girls and touch them for their own gratification unfettered?

Surely your not saying there should be two standards ?

Boggles

SexBobomb wrote: »

Surely your not saying there should be two standards ?

I all ready answered that.

But let's stick to this individual case and the thread topic at hand, stops the various rabbit holes and waste of effort.

Hoboo

Boggles wrote: »

So what you think, young men should just be allowed creepily stalk school girls and touch them for their own gratification unfettered?

If a girl had touched her on the arm would it end up in court? Simple question.

Boggles

Hoboo wrote: »

If a girl had touched her on the arm would it end up in court? Simple question.

IF a young woman did the exact same thing to a school boy / school girl than yes it would end up in court if the young boy / girl felt as threatened and traumatized as this young girl and they reported it to the police.

Why wouldn't it?

Salary Negotiator

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

BTW I'm not defending him or saying she was wrong to feel how she did. I just think a sexual assault conviction is harsh and comes down to whether the touch was actually sexual or he intended it to be sexual but wasn’t (because his missed her breast).

I'm not normally one to jump to hysterics myself, and I certainly don't side with the woman by default, as a lot of people often do. However, this chaps behaviour raises a lot of red flags for me. If it was a one-off, then you could maybe chalk it down to awkwardness or whatever.

If it was just a case of being shy and he froze the first time, he'd presumably be mortified and the last thing he'd do is wait at a spot he knows she walks past to have another go, in my mind.

I do think your one is milking the whole thing, to be honest. The Oxford excuse is absolute rubbish, seeing as it happened about 7 months before the end of the school year. But that doesn't mean he wasn't being a creepy weirdo.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I do think your one is milking the whole thing, to be honest. The Oxford excuse is absolute rubbish, seeing as it happened about 7 months before the end of the school year. But that doesn't mean he wasn't being a creepy weirdo.

She couldn't sit her mocks, not the final exams.

osarusan

Hoboo wrote: »

Because courts should be used for cases involving crime, not bs like this.

Genuine question here. This is basically what happened:

She was walking along, and saw the guy in front of her, but not facing her, just facing a hedge. She already thought it was weird. Then he turned around when she was close to him, and wordlessly put his hand on her arm, and just stood there. She said 'stop' and then quickly moved away from him.

Some days later, she's walking along again, and the same guy is coming towards her. He suddenly steps into her path, puts his hand on her side, and again, just stands there silently, smiling/smirking.

I think it's completely reasonable that she, or anybody really, would be fairly rattled by that experience, and fairly distressed by it. So my question is how should it be dealt with? Should there be any law which it breaks? If it breaks a law, which one is that?

I've already said that I think the finding of sexual assault is harsh and a real stretch, but I don't think it's 'bs' either. I don't think the anybody should be allowed to do what he did - I'm in favour of it being considered illegal in some way.

It's not assault as we often imagine it in the 'beat the crap out of you' manner, but common assault seems the closest to me. Maybe there is another crime that is more suitable, I don't know, something like harassment maybe.

Hoboo

Boggles wrote: »

She couldn't sit her mocks, not the final exams.

And therefore had nothing whatsoever to do with her not getting into Oxford.

"He would have touched my breasts had I not moved away". If he wanted to touch her breast he'd have walked up to her and touched her breast. Couldn't do her mock exams and therefore couldn't go to Oxford? Seriously, she's a fantasist at best.

seamus

It's pretty telling that in a thread about some creepy psycho trying to grope women in the street, a couple of people focus entirely on claiming that the victim is an hysterical sh1t-stirrer.

If you ever wondered why the "me too" movement even exists, this thread here is a perfect example. Even when the victim does nothing wrong, it's all her fault.