John Leslie

[archied]

It’s a real tricky one and can see both sides of the argument as there have been lots of cases where once a person has been named there follows a landslide of people who have suffered the same abuse at that persons hands but for variety of reasons were not confident enough to come forward , that person has then gone on to be dealt with correctly ,, as I say it’s a real tough one as being falsely accused and named must be right up there amongst the worst thing that can happen to a man 

[RamNut]

Sexul assault whilst dancing in a public place based on whether his hand was on her lower back or lower.

jeeze.

[sage]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

Sexul assault whilst dancing in a public place based on whether his hand was on her lower back or lower.

jeeze.

she alleged his hand went inside her trousers

[RamNut]

Better have rozzers standing all around the dancefloors from hereon.

[sage]

58 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Better have rozzers standing all around the dancefloors from hereon.

So you don't think it should be a criminal offence to put your hands down a woman's trousers without consent?

[Sith Happens]

2 hours ago, archied said:

It’s a real tricky one and can see both sides of the argument as there have been lots of cases where once a person has been named there follows a landslide of people who have suffered the same abuse at that persons hands but for variety of reasons were not confident enough to come forward , that person has then gone on to be dealt with correctly ,, as I say it’s a real tough one as being falsely accused and named must be right up there amongst the worst thing that can happen to a man 

Yeah I get that, but surely if hes convicted then he can be named and they will come forward.

[Sith Happens]

6 hours ago, sage said:

What makes me more concerned though is the incredibly low percentage of sexual assaults and rapes that end up with successful prosecutions.

 

I don't know the stats but yes I can imagine and agree. Too many people still think the girl was 'asking' for it because she put that short skirt on, or had not been an 'angel' all her life and so on.

Cannot imagine being the sort of person who makes a living from defending the accused 'knowing' that they did it but digging up enough dirt on the girl so that it creates doubt etc, then going home and being pleased with themselves.

Perhaps its another reason why cases should be kept out the media full stop, until the accused is found guilty of course.

 

 

[McRainy]

23 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I don't know the stats 

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php

[AndyinLiverpool]

7 hours ago, sage said:

What makes me more concerned though is the incredibly low percentage of sexual assaults and rapes that end up with successful prosecutions.

 

The rozzers are not interested in pursuing rape cases because they are too difficult. 

Much easier to bang up some bloke who found a London marathon medal and claimed a prize.

[Gritstone Ram]

I am not condoning any perv that thinks he can touch up any woman but how baggy were her trousers supposed to be?

I mean if you could get your hand down the back of mine they would be around my ankles. 

[RamNut]

3 hours ago, sage said:

So you don't think it should be a criminal offence to put your hands down a woman's trousers without consent?

I think what counts as a sexual assault is getting a bit thin and undermines the cases of genuine sexual assault.

do people who are getting off now have to ask permission at every stage.

 

[sage]

13 minutes ago, RamNut said:

I think what counts as a sexual assault is getting a bit thin and undermines the cases of genuine sexual assault.

do people who are getting off now have to ask permission at every stage.

 

I'll take that as a no

[archied]

41 minutes ago, Gritters said:

I am not condoning any perv that thinks he can touch up any woman but how baggy were her trousers supposed to be?

I mean if you could get your hand down the back of mine they would be around my ankles. 

Elasticated?

[RamNut]

33 minutes ago, sage said:

I'll take that as a no

Take it however you want, but who would ever consent to a close dance if there was a chance that an allegation of this nature could mean you could end in court.

it depends how these offences are defined but assualt implies a bit more.

for a court to decide exactly what happened, what was or wasn't consensual etc needs a degree of evidence and a burden of proof.

even then......i hate to tell you this but i knew someone who would scream "tear me, tear me" at the height of passion. Is that assault? the what if scenario doesn't bear thinking about.

 

 

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, RamNut said:

 

even then......i hate to tell you this but i knew someone who would scream "tear me, tear me" at the height of passion. Is that assault? the what if scenario doesn't bear thinking about.

 

 

Does he post on here? Is he a mod?

[McRainy]

6 hours ago, RamNut said:

it depends how these offences are defined but assualt implies a bit more.

Does it? 

More than having an uninvited hand down your trousers?

Where do you draw the line then?

[Sith Happens]

11 hours ago, RamNut said:

I think what counts as a sexual assault is getting a bit thin and undermines the cases of genuine sexual assault.

do people who are getting off now have to ask permission at every stage.

 

I do get what you are saying, but I think when you are 'getting off', you don't usually go in with hands down the pants sort of approach. I sort of think you do get permission at every stage even if its not verbal. You know, if you are slow dancing you 'know' if she wants a kiss, you 'know' if she doesn't mind your hand on her back, or even on her bum.  You 'know' when you take things somewhere else if she wants your hand inside her top and so on. There doesnt have to be a verbal agreement but body language works.

I remember when i was like 17 going to the cinema with a girl, took me ages to go from arm on arm rest to resting against hers, to little finger touching hers, to little finger over lapping hers and so on....the credits where on before i had my hand in her pants...ok the last bit didnt happen but you get my drift.

Anyway today they dont 'get off' like they did in my day, they have to like, friend, poke, swipe one way or the other before they even talk to each other.

 

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, Lambchop said:

Does it? 

More than having an uninvited hand down your trousers?

Where do you draw the line then?

If an unwelcome hand disappears down the back of your trousers then i think it is not unreasonable to expect a reaction that makes it clear that this is wrong. Don't keep dancing. There is even a degree to which the consent could reasonably be misconstrued if the other party did not react.  

In criminal injury cases, the prosecution has to prove not only what happened and who was at fault but also that an injury occoured. I.e. Someone actually suffered as a result.

when someone crashed into my car i was told i needed two independent witnesses to prove fault. A friend wouldn't count. So where was the evidence in this case? 

Finally.....where is the line being drawn. Is a touch on the bum outside of the trousers sexual assault? A hand on a leg?  We have an m.p resigning because of an allegation of a hand on a knee even when the other party was not bothered - i.e. Suffered no injury. Is every young person dancing close at a nightclub to run the risk of a prosection?

The law exists to protect everyone. Not just some. 

 

[sage]

It was her first dance with him. She hadnt had a previous conversation.

As someone else posted earlier, getting off with someone is incremental.

 

 

[McRainy]

2 hours ago, RamNut said:

If an unwelcome hand disappears down the back of your trousers then i think it is not unreasonable to expect a reaction that makes it clear that this is wrong. Don't keep dancing. There is even a degree to which the consent could reasonably be misconstrued if the other party did not react.  

As ever, the expectation is that the onus is on the woman to prevent situations like this. Don't wear provocative clothing, don't speak to anyone, and certainly don't accept a dance, otherwise it's an open invitation for a man to start touching you sexually. 

When this inevitably happens, it is then the woman's responsibility to deal with it. Make the boundaries clear, because the man can't be expected to know. React, say no, move away, make your lack of consent clear, once it has already been breached. 

Have no fear of doing this, because it is well known that men always accept rejection calmly and politely, and will never continue to harrass you, force themselves on you, or become violent. 

The assumption in your comment is that men pressing themselves sexually on a woman is the default, it is normal and to be expected, so if the woman doesn't take steps to prevent it she is basically asking for it.

Don't you think this attitude of presuming sexual availability until convinced otherwise is actually the problem? Ask the women in your life how easy it is to publicly reject a man who is pushing himself on you. How many have the experience of being harrassed and threatened. 

Don't bother telling me that it's #notallmen either, trying to avoid sexual harassment, assault and worse is a constant in the life of any woman who doesn't just want to stay at home, and even there it's not gauranteed. What to wear, where to walk, where to sit, who to talk to. That's just going about your daily life, not looking for a date. 

The whole attitude and culture needs to change, and unfortunately this is only going to happen when men start believing there are likely to be serious consequences for sexually harrassing and assaulting women. Currently, as the statistics I posted show, men who behave in this way are almost certain to get away with it. 

Somehow, you have managed to twist this situation around to make out that men are the victims, they are the ones who can't do anything without being accused. Your interpretation is so warped, it is laughable.