to think the Paul Gascoigne verdict gives a green light to drunken men

[friendlyflicka]

I realise it is a bit more complicated than that, but basically he was drunk and slobbering and the woman didn't give her consent. But because the kiss was not prolonged and because he is a kind hearted simpleton and didn't intend anything sexual, that is fine.

Agreed. Found this verdict very disappointing.

Totally agree

Apparently just a bit of a laugh guys at work thought it was mist funny yesterday

He has a history of violence towards women

I want the bar for 'assault' to be higher than this act.
Vilify him if you think he's a selfish whatever creep. Knock yourself out.

Do you want to campaign to change the law?

My brief experience of Jury Duty showed that there was sympathy for a perpetrator more so than the victim, if it involved them going to prison and if they could show any kind of mitigating factor - even if technically guilty. As in, we know he did it like they said, but we don't want to be responsible for him being locked up. It totally disillusioned me as to the fairness of the current legal system.

I haven’t mentioned him being a creep

This is not creepy behaviour touching a women when she is not wanting you to is not creepy if in a sexual way it is assault

We know he history towards women

I still feel the "We Believe You" MN campaign was endorsing guilt without proof. No evidence required, no legal justification, no due process. Just like this thread.

Forgive me, I haven’t followed the details of the case closely.

Assuming there were witnesses on the train, and surely CCTV that both prove he did in fact kiss the woman without her consent.

How is that not assault?

@YeOldeTrout But there was proof in this case: there were witnesses. It wasn't that the jury disbelieved the woman's word. In fact Paul Gascoigne was shown to have lied about his reasons for kissing the woman.

It was that he had character history of being a tactile person and it was shown that he had no sexual intent, and that he was just being kind hearted in his drunken intentions.

It is not a question of We Believe You. it is interpreting the witnessed events of the case, and what it means for women in public places putting up with unwanted behaviour from men, because they don't mean anything nasty.

He admitted to kissing her to boost her confidence

And other passengers got involved as the women wanted to be left alone

So as long as we women allow men to make decisions what is best for us and if they think a good old grope/kiss/pinch on the bum/cock rubbed against our own leg is what is needed then so be it

Women know your place

It was not sexual assault because the intention on his part was not sexual.

And it was not battery because it wasn't violent.

So, yes, there were witnesses but the jury couldn't or wouldn't find him guilty of either of the above.

But surely he is guilty of something if a woman is thoroughly humiliated and repulsed by a drunken man slobbering all over and then has to suffer being called a 'fat lass' repeatedly in court. Poor woman.

Common assault doesn't even require the other person to have been touched to be convicted of assault. I have never heard anyone complain about that. But you think the bar for sexual assault is too low?

Violent, abusive men already know they can get away with raping women, I don't think they're going to care much either way about this. It just confirms what they already knew.

How is that not assault?

Because a jury got to decide, and they don't have to provide the basis for their decision or justify It or actually make it in accordance with the fucking law like judges do. They can just decide it doesn't fit their mental idea of what sexual assault means, regardless of what the law says. Or that they don't want to let this spoil the poor man's life. And hey presto.

Oh again a man decides what is sexual and what is not

A man decides if his actions were sexual not a women decides if she was sexually assaulted

Same old sh*t

Gascoigne admitted that he had done this in court. He's not an "innocent man". The issue was that the jury wasn't convinced he meant to sexually assault the victim when he kissed her against her will.

was not sexual assault because the intention on his part was not sexual

irrelevant.

Sexual assault per the sexual offences act 2003 requires the touch to be intentional, which this was, and of a sexual nature, which this was.

Whether or not he intended it to be read that way is not mentioned.

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.

Juries are a bit of a lottery. I was on one with a woman chairperson (most of the jury women) and the first thing she said was that he was obviously guilty as he looked the type. Trial had barely started.

YANBU.
I don't know the full details of what law they were saying he had broken but I don't want men being able to drunkenly give me (or any other PERSON) a kiss on the train .
In what way is that ok?

Call be naive but in a what world is a random man kissing you on the mouth NOT sexual?

The intent is irrelevant surely?

YANBU.

They’ll be letting drunk men off for raping women next because they did not mean it to be sexual.

Oh, wait.

This verdict gives a green light to men, whether drunk or sober. If they can’t claim «she was asking for it», they can just say, «I was trying to cheer her up», and apparently that’s ok!

Disgusting!

Glad I am not alone in my view. Was just shocked by the verdict.

So presume women now have the green light to knee men in the nuts? This is how we poor wee woman handled gropers and grinders on the tube back in ye olden days.

My brother sent me a text as the verdict was announced which was full of anger. He was utterly disgusted by it. He is raising two girls alone and is despairing of a system designed to protect them.

I'm already dealing with my 12yo being groped by a 14yo and being labeled a "frigid cunt" for objecting.

Again and again and again and again. When does this shit end?

It's fucked up alright. It was definitely assault (unwanted touching) and sexual assault at that (sexual in nature). And he admitted to it. He just made excuses. So he basically said he was guilty but then went on a long brain-fucked-by-alcohol ramble about how his entire life story "makes" him commit sexual assault.

Well whoopee Gazza, you and every other essentially pathetic bloke out there. I'd say most men who get up to shit like this would fall into the category of not being up to meeting expected norms of human interaction.

Thing is that juries feel sorry for them and don't want to send them to prison because that would mean sending someone to prison for being a loser. Even though keeping them out of prison means that they'll just continue as they were only now with an affirmed sense of victimhood ("my court case hell"etc). And so nothing ever changes.