DLT re-trial

[columngollum]

Is this a constructive use of public funds?

Really??? You think women should just put up and shut up because in the grand scheme of things having your bodily integrity invaded is just not worth worrying about? Is this what you have been told all your life about small sexual assaults? Does the fact that you just expected to put up with sexual assault mean nobody else has the right to stand up and say "This is wrong"?

I really wonder what sort of cognitive dissidence is going on here.

I think in the grand scheme of things you need to use common sense and see a nip on the arse for what it is.

Call it a small sexual assault if you want. I'll call it high jinx.

Anyone 'high jinxes' me and I'll rip his fucking hand off. Then call police.

So it's common sense to tell women not to complain about sexual assault?

This is why it's so prevalent. People like you are telling women they have no right to complain when they are assaulted. It's trivialised, it's minimised and the victims are blamed for complaining. Over 75,000 women disagree with you

How on earth do you think men are ever going to stop feeling they have the right to women's bodies if we don't stand up and say 'stop this, it's unacceptable'?

Men shouldn't think they have a right to women's bodies of course not. In today's society we are under no illusion as to what is and isn't acceptable.

But the world has gone mad. Why can't women deal with trivial matters like bum pinching themselves? Slap him and tell him to piss off and he will get the message he's picked on the wrong woman. He's just a joker, a chancer.

I wouldn't dream of wasting police resources on such trivia.

I think you are in a time warp, Gymbob, if you slap someone nowadays you can be convicted of assault. Ok, the judge might let you off but, on the other hand, they might feel that assaulting someone is not a let offable offence.

Gymbob - are these two outstanding cases about bum pinching? I thought one of them was a sexual assault and the other an indecent assault. I assume the former is more serious?

if you slap him for bum pinching he's hardly likely to do you for assault is he?!

Assuming he didn't loudly announce he was going to pinch my bum it would have been done surreptitiously, anyone in the vicinity would hear or see the slap, then it is his word against mine.

Come on, Gymbob, admit defeat

How old are you Gymbob ...if you don't mind me asking??

Since you're obsessed with everyone's ages GymBob, I'm 34. Don't know what its got to do with the price of eggs though. You're talking a load of victim blaming, misogynistic crap. Please move with the times. Of course 'bum pinching' is sexual assault if its unwanted.

I will be really interested to see what a second jury makes of the case

No
It isn't justice for the thousands of victims of unknown non celebrity abusers.

The CPS aren't going to bring their cases to cort at great expense.

There are a variety of crimes that qualify as sexual assault and this is reflected in the variety of sentences that are set. So child abuse would of course attract a harsher penalty than groping, although both are crimes of sexual assault.

Gym bob, you do understand that typically this kind of assault is committed by someone who has more "power" than the recipient - older , higher up the chain of command, an important client etc. So turning round and slapping them would likely have serious professional consequences.

Court

Noco, the CPS already decided to bring the crimes to court. It's unfortunate no verdict was reached but it's reasonable for there to be a retrial unless some factor in the trial led to the CPS changing their view of the evidence base

Gym- his charges were not all "just a bit of bum pinching". Do you know in detail what he was charged with? Maybe you should before you spout such a lot of rubbish?

yes I do know and none of it is acceptable in society today. but 40 years ago (which one of the charges he was cleared of dates back to) such behaviour was dealt with by the women involved. it was just part of the era we lived through.

my point was initially regarding that.

I do like a debate though thanks

such behaviour was dealt with by the women involved but they often were girls who had no clue how to 'deal' with it, you are just being obtuse.

Was it dealt with by all women? Or by some who felt strong enough and the rest were upset, felt unlikely to be heard, maybe changed job etc etc?

Since plenty of the latter goes on today (there's a recent thread about someone who was groped not feeling bold enough to either have a word or report and agonising over what she did wrong) - I am guessing lots of women did not "deal with it"

I'm 50 and I love you all

I did have an unwanted encounter when I was a naive teen. He
was at least twice my age and frightened me to death but it happened in a different era.

I have wondered if he was a celeb would I do anything about it now

It was 'dealt with' by the woman in those days, or, if she told her father, brother, or other male relative, they would 'deal with it' for her.

I dealt with it by leaving my Saturday job. You really need to be over about 50 and to have been in the workplace in the 70s to understand just how prevalent it was. Which is not to say it was acceptable then, just as it is not acceptable now.

But someone who perpetarated that sort of behaviou nowadays could (and should) expect to be investigated for assault, whereas, in those days, the perpetrator would have no expectation whatsoever that criminal charges may be brought.

So, just as once upon a time, in the dark ages, people did not challenge slavery, or capital punishment, or the fact that a woman was the chattel of her husband, or that homosexuality was once illegal, or that smoking opium was once acceptable , society has moved on and holds these things quite rightly in abhorrance. We should not try people for historical crimes by the very different standards in today's society.

I do however think that war crimes, for instance, or murders should be prosecuted relentlessly to the end of the perpetrators life. These were heinous crimes when they were committed and continue to be so.

what mycat said. so perfectly

in those days, the perpetrator would have no expectation whatsoever that criminal charges may be brought

I just don't get that that makes it ok and not prosecutable, I made the point earlier - are you saying all the priests who abused children should get away with it, they def did not expect to be charged?

It was a crime then, and it's a crime now. mycat talks as though it was legal. It wasn't. And broadly accepted. It wasn't. More prevalent, more excused perhaps, but still illegal and wrong. Stop reinventing the 70s to support victim-blaming now.