Harsh sentence

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Two posters have openly admitted on the thread to intimately touching fully asleep partners. You seriously wanna nitpick about what exactly that entails? And why would anything other than insertion of fingers into the vagina be any more acceptable anyway? Vagina is a no-no but vulva or clit is... grand?

I often wake my 8 month old daughter by kissing her, other than my wife I dont kiss anyone else on the face as its an intimate act. Am I now abusing my daughter along with my wife in your eyes?

LillySV wrote: »

I think the way this country is gone... men would want to go around with a go pro on their head 24/7, ensure they don’t get within 2metres of a woman without written consent from the woman and her solicitor ....

Na. Just don’t go shoving your hands in intimate places on women without their consent, particularly the ones you don’t know and are not in a relationship with, and you should be okay.
Might be a bit of a struggle for some people on this thread however.

LillySV wrote: »

The fact they heard it shows they were...

She clearly woke up when he touched her? If she was awake the whole time as you’re saying, then how does his defence of “I thought she was my girlfriend” work for you? Surely if she was awake he would have known exactly who she was...no?

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You know what, I would bet loads of guys are now secretly filming their one night stands due to the current climate. Not to be perves but as insurance against false rape claims. Thanks for that #metoo

So what you're saying is that men are committing a type of sex crime, secretly recording women when they're having sex, to avoid being accused of a sex crime.....

makes about as much sense any everything else on AH.

GreeBo wrote: »

"Clearly?" Could you show where thats clear.

Ahh but before you go finger wagging at me and shouting proof and what not, can you provide proof that this either did or did not happen?

GreeBo wrote: »

if I was awake and someone was doing something to me that I didn't want I'd do or at least say something about it.

I mean that’s a nice little anecdote and all but this isn’t really about you. You seem to have not only positioned yourself in the room that night, but be judging those who were in the room based on your own intimate standards. How do you know she didn’t shout after him? Are you basing your extremely elaborate theories on an extremely limited few line article?

GreeBo wrote: »

I would sink down to your level of discussion but I can't even imagine what it's like down there

I’m not sure it’s possible for you to sink any lower tbh.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm basing my replies on the reported facts of the case. You are basing your replies on your own opinions

You’re basing your replies based on speculation and conjecture, not to mention your own bias opinion and outdated myth. What you would or wouldn’t have done in her position, yet alone what you do or don’t do in the bedroom is of absolutely no interest to anyone. Unless you find yourself on the receiving end of an allegation (which judging by your boastful posts about touching women while they sleep, could be sooner rather than later) your sexual habits are neither here nor there, nor interesting.
So, can you tell me what exactly you’ve read in these reported facts that leads you to conclude she didn’t tell him to gtfo?

GreeBo wrote: »

Any chance at all you can answer my question on this statement you made?
3 times I've asked it now I think.

His whole defence is built around the fact he mistook her identity while she was unresponsive. The fact she was falling asleep and thus couldn’t consent is not up for debate, not even by the convicted sex offender.
If she was awake as you’re at pains to assume, it would make it a lot harder for him to mistake her identity. You’re literally plucking shlt out of the sky to try and defend an argument that wasn’t even presented in court.

retro:electro wrote: »

You’re basing your replies based on speculation and conjecture, not to mention your own bias opinion and outdated myth. What you would or wouldn’t have done in her position, yet alone what you do or don’t do in the bedroom is of absolutely no interest to anyone. Unless you find yourself on the receiving end of an allegation (which judging by your boastful posts about touching women while they sleep, could be sooner rather than later) your sexual habits are neither here nor there, nor interesting.
So, can you tell me what exactly you’ve read in these reported facts that leads you to conclude she didn’t tell him to gtfo?



His whole defence is built around the fact he mistook her identity while she was unresponsive. The fact she was falling asleep and thus couldn’t consent is not up for debate, not even by the convicted sex offender.
If she was awake as you’re at pains to assume, it would make it a lot harder for him to mistake her identity. You’re literally plucking shlt out of the sky to try and defend an argument that wasn’t even presented in court.

Again I'm basing my replies of the reported facts. I've quoted the victim to backup my claim, what have you quoted other than your mate?
She says she as falling asleep, ergo in a world with logic, she was awake.

You think they reported what he said but just for the craic decided to leave it the incredibly relevant fact that she told him to leave? You don't think her lawyers would have maybe brought that up aa salient piece of info to refute good his claim of why he left the room?

Maybe the reporter didn't think that was relevant in this case.

Why would it be harder to mistake someone's identity when they are awake? You keep saying this without explaining why. Do people all morph into the same image when asleep?
A blonde lying in bed facing the other way looks the same whether she is awake, asleep or dead. She looks like a blonde.


Boastful posts? Are you 12 or something? For crying out loud have a proper discussion or go away and let the grown ups talk. Its embarrassing at this stage

Dante7 wrote: »

You're wasting your time trying to have a sensible discussion about this topic with certain posters here. For simply creating the thread I was accused of probably having committed similar offences myself. And for stating that touching a vagina did not involve digital penetration, I was told that this demonstrated my attitude to sexual abuse.

There is a bit of man-hateyness about some of the posters and it is impossible to have a reasoned debate with people who have brought predetermined prejudices to the discussion. To counter this, I will reframe my opinion but way of a hypothetical. If a gay friend of mine (or any man for that matter), drunkenly got into bed beside me, grabbed my dick and asked to see my helmet and then got up and left, I would think that a two and a half year sentence was very harsh. In fact, I would think any criminal sanction would be harsh.

Agreed. And I guess you, as I, would feel very different if that men deliberately took advantage rather than mistaken identity. The act against you is the same but the context is totally different, hence the outcome should be different.

Dante7 wrote: »

I'm even taking into account that it was not an accident in my opinion that the sentence would be harsh. It is touching someone! No violence, no threats, no coercion. It is completely out of sync with sentencing guidelines for other, more serious violent crimes.

I would feel differently based on the intent or lack thereof.
I'd have to think long and hard about what sentence made sense to me.
Comparing to other sentencing would certainly lead me to think there was something wrong somewhere.

GreeBo wrote: »

The physical act as in a hand on your junk is the same.

Sure, and like I already said for myself - wouldn’t bother me to the point where I would feel threatened by it, I’m perfectly capable of defending myself if I need to and have done in the past, not entirely dissimilar to the scenario Dante presents*, and at the same time I can understand why someone who isn’t me would be traumatised by someone touching their private parts without their permission.


*I was drunk at the time, just not drunk enough to let a fella think he could get away with having a lucky dip!

Dante7 wrote: »

It seems like the accused refused to admit he committed a crime and that is what he received the sentence for.

That’s part of it, plus the fact that even after being found guilty after putting everyone through a trial, he still seemed to refuse to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong, leaving the Judge with not much choice in passing the sentence they did.

Now, if that were most other people in similar circumstances where someone objected to their private parts being touched, we’d apologise and that’d likely be the end of it, because we’d know we made a bad call. This fella doesn’t seem to understand what he did was wrong still, and I know it might not bother you if someone had touched your junk and then claimed they didn’t do anything wrong, but surely you can see how it would bother someone else?

batgoat wrote: »

Question, why do you keep referring to the 2 and a half year sentence? He will face likely less than a year.... Seems pretty fair given his lack of remorse and the impact upon the victim, it may also actually result in him considering the impact upon the victim.

probably bee cause that wad the sentence he received?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s part of it, plus the fact that even after being found guilty after putting everyone through a trial, he still seemed to refuse to acknowledge he’d done anything wrong, leaving the Judge with not much choice in passing the sentence they did.

Now, if that were most other people in similar circumstances where someone objected to their private parts being touched, we’d apologise and that’d likely be the end of it, because we’d know we made a bad call. This fella doesn’t seem to understand what he did was wrong still, and I know it might not bother you if someone had touched your junk and then claimed they didn’t do anything wrong, but surely you can see how it would bother someone else?

I guessthe problem is we don't know what went on afterwards. I postedit earlier in the thread but perhaps he did apologise and yet the victim was labelling him as a sex pest up and down the town. In that instance i can see why the accused might not be so contrite.
This is his sister dragging him through the public courts remember.

batgoat wrote: »

The majority of his sentence was suspended. So the time he is actually due to serve would seem far more relevant. The poster has happily pointed out when other sentences were suspended...(within this thread) So it would seem the shock value is what he's aiming for.

The man was found to be guilty, showed no remorse and has significantly impacted the well being of another via a crime. That is what he was sentence for. It would likely have been a shorter sentence if he showed an ounce of remorse.

Your very first sentence answers your own question. The sentence is the sentence.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think you misunderstood my point completely!

I'm not saying he brazens it out, I'm saying he apologises profusely for his honest mistake but she is telling any one who will listen the he is some pervert who took advantage and abused her, culminating in taking him to court.
In that scenario in going to find it hard to appear contrite.

I get your point, that’s why I said it’s entirely plausible that what you’re suggesting could have happened, but that wouldn’t explain why he would still maintain that he didn’t do anything wrong in three instances - when he’s appearing before the investigating officers, when he’s appearing in court before a jury, and finally of course at the sentencing hearing. He doesn’t have to appear contrite towards someone who is accusing him of all sorts, the problem is that he still maintains after being found guilty that he doesn’t agree he is guilty of committing an offence.

A jury already found him guilty, his innocence is no longer in question, what matters at a sentencing hearing is whether or not he is prepared to acknowledge his guilt, and he wasn’t. The best the judge could come up with as mitigating factors in suspending part of his sentence are his previous good character and employment history. That’s a Judge trying their best to be fair in spite of what appears to be yer mans best efforts to attract a much more severe sentence.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get your point, that’s why I said it’s entirely plausible that what you’re suggesting could have happened, but that wouldn’t explain why he would still maintain that he didn’t do anything wrong in three instances - when he’s appearing before the investigating officers, when he’s appearing in court before a jury, and finally of course at the sentencing hearing. He doesn’t have to appear contrite towards someone who is accusing him of all sorts, the problem is that he still maintains after being found guilty that he doesn’t agree he is guilty of committing an offence.

I see a difference between someone denying they sexually assaulted someone but freely admitting to the facts of what happened on the night in question, which from my reading of the report is what happened here.

Put it another way, would you expect a different sentence for someone who denies the event took place at all but has the same "good character"?
The accused could have denied the entire event and then its a "he said-she said" as there were no other witnesses. But he didnt, he described exactly what happened and why and what his response was. For that to get the same sentence as the person who knowingly assaults someone to me is indicative of something wrong with the system.