An odd story in the Telegraph: tinyurl.com/q2o4t4o
Whilst it is totally understandable that the victim is shocked, has a crime been committed?
Extreme examples: If a woman sleeps with a man who turns out to be homosexual - is that sexual assault?
If a man lies about his name, marital status, salary or job to get a woman in to bed, does that constitute assault?
If a man has a prosthetic because of an injury but hides it, it that assault?
Seems to me the "victim" was naive but I am not sure that a crime has been committed?
|
|
She cant tell the difference between meat & plastic???
|
"An odd story......"
I think it was Forrest Gump who said "Life is like a box of chocolates ............ you don't know what you're gonna get".
|
Should have done the The Dundee Handshake
youtu.be/6fzrE8lGJds
|
>> I think it was Forrest Gump who said "Life is like a box of chocolates
>> ............ you don't know what you're gonna get".
>>
I find it helps to read the signs before sticking my hands in the box. I don't want to end up dealing with hard nuts when I'm after a strawberry crème. So far so good.
|
|
Troof IS stranger than fiction.!
|
>> Troof IS stranger than fiction.!
Troof is what they use in Yorkshire to keep the rain off.
|
What a yarn that is.
Can you believe someone is so gullible as to turn up and wear a blindfold FFS!
Fair enough, you wouldn't be thinking a woman, but surely you'd be thinking 'there's something wrong here'.
These people vote!
|
|
It illustrates what "grooming" is, doesn't it? Almost unbelievable.
|
It illustrates that grooming is possible because so many people ARE gullible.
I was voted unanimously by my fellow lorry drivers to inform a lorry driving colleague that the 'female' he was heading towards his lorry cab bed with, was actually a male waiting for a sex change operation.
....he took a long while before he believed me but she/he had confided in me that this was the case and it was obvious to some others.
Alanovic, I shall go and give you a scowly face for the UKIP remark:(
Pat
|
- - > Alanovic, I shall go and give you a scowly face for the UKIP remark:(
Could you give him one from me as well, save me login in, like.
:}
|
>> I was voted unanimously by my fellow lorry drivers to inform a lorry driving colleague
>> that the 'female' he was heading towards his lorry cab bed with, was actually a
>> male waiting for a sex change operation.
Read that a recalled piece from Guardian covering same ground from different perspective:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/27/never-know-how-man-react-my-past-and-genitalia
|
That's incredibly sad (for both parties) Bromp.
Pat
|
>> Can you believe someone is so gullible as to turn up and wear a blindfold
>> FFS!
I actually went on a blind date (organised by friends) and wore a bag over my head (with eyeholes cut out) as a joke. The funny thing was, she did exactly the same thing! It was hilarious.
Mind it didn't last she turned out to be a complete fruit and nut case.
|
Great story, Zero, and undoubtedly with a simple gender change is also being told word for word elsewhere.
|
>> Mind it didn't last she turned out to be a complete fruit and nut case.
Ah, so you also had something else in common too ;)
|
I'll bet the "victim" in this story felt a right t*t.
(And probably a left one as well)
Last edited by: Londoner on Wed 9 Sep 15 at 16:30
|
>> Seems to me the "victim" was naive but I am not sure that a crime
>> has been committed?
Since she's been prosecuted the CPS must think there's a crime. Up to judges directions and the jury now.
|
>> >> Seems to me the "victim" was naive but I am not sure that a
>> crime
>> >> has been committed?
>>
>> Since she's been prosecuted the CPS must think there's a crime. Up to judges directions
>> and the jury now.
>>
If it was a crime for people to be shafted by a fake cock, Tony Blair would be doing life by now.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Wed 9 Sep 15 at 21:15
|
>> If it was a crime for people to be shafted by a fake cock, Tony
>> Blair would be doing life by now.
Alas he is a complete prick, so got away with it.
|
Another angle including later evidence:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/sep/09/woman-allegedly-tricked-into-sex-with-friend-pretending-to-be-man-lesbian-court-told
Seems to me that victim was, to use an old colloquialism, not the full shilling. Makes the groom in analogy seen more plausible.
|
I've just seen two birds locked in coitus!
**********************************************************************
*
Wood pigeons, actually - a bit late in the year for procreation - is it just lust?
|
>> Wood pigeons, actually - a bit late in the year for procreation
Ours seem to be 'at it' from at least Feb to November. Whether it's an optimistic male or genuine procreation I cannot tell but there was an immature one in the garden last week.
|
Guilty of sexual assault. Sentencing in November.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-34258993
|
Jailed for eight years.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34799692
No doubt she'll still be able to use that prosthetic penis while doing time.
|
|
That seems a very savage sentence.
|
Judges sentencing remarks.
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/r-v-newlandsentencing.pdf
Not had time to more than scan them but he's sat through case and seen reports and seems to have formed view that Newland is a bad 'un. She can always appeal of she's advised she's got a chance. Max sentence for offence is life.
Going the distance on not guilty so putting the victim in the witness box will do her no favours either.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 12 Nov 15 at 16:34
|
I can understand why the judge felt she had to go down, but Rolf Harris put his victims in the same position and got five years nine months for offences most people would consider far more serious.
She received the same term as Max Clifford, again a more prolific and serious offender.
|
|
Not sure I can see much between her and Harris except for his offences involving minors. The scope and extent of Newland's deception and the vulnerable state of the victim seem to have weighed heavily on the judge.
|
She has I believe also shown little remorse or acknowledged responsibility, presumably consistent with her defence that it was all role play. That won't have helped at all.
I still find it unbelievable. But it shows how well con tricks can work.
|
>> I can understand why the judge felt she had to go down
::schoolboy chortle::
|
This is an odd case and I am still not sure that I understand why she was prosecuted, though I recall this is the second such prosecution.
It is not rape because the other woman consented to sex.
If it is because she said she was something that she wasn't then how many people are guilty of that? A bloke saying he is MD of a company to get a woman in to bed when in fact he is the office clerk - is that assault? And, if that is the case then why are not these police officers not charged:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731553/Undercover-police-officers-slept-women-spying-escape-prosecution.html ?
Or is it because she used a toy without specific permission, again if a bloke is impotent and secretly does the same, is that assault?
I am not trying to belittle sexual assaults, they are one of the most horrendous crimes, its just that the victim here agreed to have sex with the accused and then complained when they realized the accused wasn't who she said she was?
Oh its late, I am tired and am confused!
|
Well, it's early for me and I'm confused for all the same reasons as you Zippy.
Pat
|
>> its just that the victim here agreed to have sex with the accused and
>> then complained when they realized the accused wasn't who she said she was?
I think that's the point. The victim agreed to having sex with a man called Kye and not Gayle Newland. The sheer scale and complexity of the deception persuaded the Police and CPS that the case would stand up in court - that a jury would convict.
Pretty significant difference between the facts here and somebody gilding the lily over their occupation or whatever.
The fact that the undercover plods were not prosecuted doesn't mean they should not have been.
|
|
Tbh the whole thing to me is quite difficult to believe. It really is an incredible story. I wasn't in court but from the links from above the defence version of events seem as believable as the prosecution's, to me anyway.
|
>>
>> >> its just that the victim here agreed to have sex with the accused and
>> >> then complained when they realized the accused wasn't who she said she was?
>>
>> I think that's the point. The victim agreed to having sex with a man called
>> Kye and not Gayle Newland.
>>
What would the case be is the accused was called Sam or Valerie or Jo(e) all names that could be used by both sexes and they didn't discuss their sexuality, i.e. just picked someone up at a bar?
|
|
I also think the punishment is excessively harsh when compared to the Yewtree mob!
|
>>I also think the punishment is excessively harsh when compared to the Yewtree mob!
I don't think you can compare the two. The scale of the deception here was staggering, with one identity befriending the victim and endorsing the false persona as genuine.
Ask yourself what the effect of this must have been on the victim, and had she been your sister what punishment you would have thought appropriate.
|
Obtaining money by deception is a crime, so why wouldn't obtaining sex by deception be?
Con someone into lending you some money and don;t pay it back, then as long as it isn't frequent and a large amount there'll be no prosecution.
Manage to get a lot of money over a long period of time, and there will most certainly be a prosecution.
So I think it was right that the woman was prosecuted. The fact that her victim seems like a bit of a plank is neither here nor there. We have to assume that the guilty verdict was appropriate.
As to the 8 years, well I don't agree with prison as a penalty anyway, but that to one side it is the approach we use.
She has obtained sex by deception which is most certainly a sexual assault. She has caused emotional harm. She did it on purpose, repeatedly and over a period of time. She would have continued to do it if she had not been discovered, and even though discovered she would not admit her crime.
Short of physically holding the woman down, I don't see how it could have been worse. We don't see conning a child into sex is any better than rape, and other than this is not a minor, the principle is surely similar?
So perhaps it should have been 7 years, or 9 years, or 6 years or whatever, but a pretty severe sentence was called for IMO.
|
>>Obtaining money by deception is a crime, so why wouldn't obtaining sex by deception be?
Most blokes at the office would be guilt then, the number that big themselves up to be directors etc.
Del Boy would also be going down!
|
|
Hence my point about severity and repetition.
|
|
Also, what happens to a guy that dates a transgender person without realizing and goes to bed with them over several weeks. Is the transgender person guilty of assault if they hide the fact even after surgery?
|
This involved very calculated and complex grooming, even going as far as the accused becoming different personalities to enhance the story. It's in a totally different league to people embellishing the truth.
As Bromp said "Pretty significant difference between the facts here and somebody gilding the lily over their occupation or whatever"
|
|
The women are both sexual deviants, lesbian or something like it, and treacherous too like so many of their damaged ilk. Very sad and distasteful, poor girls but yuck...
|
>> The women are both sexual deviants, lesbian or something like it, and treacherous too like
>> so many of their damaged ilk. Very sad and distasteful, poor girls but yuck...
>>
Oh please come out of the dark ages AC.
|
>> Oh please come out of the dark ages AC.
Heh heh... have you actually scanned this thread and read what people have to say?
Of course zippy you are quite within your rights to denounce me for my antediluvian views. You are nevertheless about as wrong as you could be. I've watched it all with close interest for half a century, round and round in an endlessly amusing spiral.
My attitude to these women isn't heartless or anything like it. Obviously I have misrepresented myself.
|
|
It's not just all cats which are grey in the dark!
|
So taking the relevant section of the Sexual Offences 2003 act totally out of context:
The circumstances are that—
(a)the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
(b)the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.
"I want to shag you because I want to stay with you forever" than sodding off is now a crime!
How the heck do you impersonate someone known by the complainant! If you are personally known then they will be able to identify an impostor!
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 14 Nov 15 at 11:13
|
>>>>
>> How the heck do you impersonate someone known by the complainant! If you are personally known then they will be able to identify an impostor!
>>
>>
There have been cases where a woman (Often well under the influence) has let a person she believed was her partner get into bed after she had been there some time and had sex.
|
|
What's her name and address please?
|
>> There have been cases where a woman (Often well under the influence) has let a
>> person she believed was her partner get into bed after she had been there some
>> time and had sex.
There was a reported case back in the seventies on a variation of those facts. Came to attention of a colleague from the time who, during an office move, found a photocopy of the law report in a judge's desk drawer. It wasn't an area of law the judges concerned dealt with; we suspected it had been passed round the all male judicial messroom for its value as smutty humour.
Victim lived with her parents but facilitated 'conjugal visits' from her boyfriend by expedient of leaving a ladder under her bedroom window. On the night in question some other guy climbed the ladder and got into bed with her. He was well beyond Haymarket (or Edge Hill if you're a scouser), with some co-operation from the woman, before being rumbled.
Milado was charged and convicted of rape. Question for the Court of Appeal was whether the offence was made out. I think the conviction stood but cannot fully recall.
|
>>An intersting insight from a legal blog:
thesecretbarrister.com/2015/11/13/gayle-newlands-sentence-was-both-entirely-proper-and-wildly-disproportionate/
So she would have been better off beating her half to death...madness!
|
One or two posts upthread mentioned the undercover police. Seems that civil cases brought against the forces concerned have been settled and some of the women have allowed their stories to be published.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34882540
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/nov/20/met-police-apologise-women-had-relationships-with-undercover-officers
The officer known as Mark 'Stone' Kennedy seems to have been a particularly prolific sha**er.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 21 Nov 15 at 08:36
|
|
Brompie...going to start a new thread on this if that's OK..?
|
|
Fine. I thought about it but jumped other way.
|
>> Fine. I thought about it but jumped other way.
bit like the boyfriend who is really a woman.
|
Like buses, these cases. You wait years for one then two come along at once.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-35105980
|
>>Like buses, these cases. You wait years for one then two come along at once.
It stills requires a lot of Dicktective work to prosecute the offenders!
|
I know i shouldn't snigger but really?
'To make Newland’s case, the jury was shown the large, pink prosthetic penis, which she used during their sexual encounters. The jury were ordered to take it into the jury room for their deliberations.'
|
>> I know i shouldn't snigger but really?
I sniggered too ;-)
|
|
Nice to see the evidence stood up in court.
|
|
I just have this mental imagine of the jury sat in a room with government issued furniture (c1970s) a large pink dildo in middle of the table and no one quite sure what to say.
|
>> I just have this mental imagine of the jury sat in a room with government
>> issued furniture (c1970s) a large pink dildo in middle of the table and no one
>> quite sure what to say.
Reminded of a scene at Leeds Playhouse c1980 where set is a Yorkshire living room. Mantelpiece ornaments are augmented by a vibrator. My Mother, in a stage whisper, asks my sister 'whats that thing next to the King's Jubilee mug?'
|
Since you love such things...
That's an incorrect use of the word "augmented" together with a missing apostrophe.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 29 Jun 17 at 21:17
|
Missing apostrophe? Guilty as charged.
Augment:
Make something greater by adding to it
And your problem is?
|
>> Augment:
>>
>> Make something greater by adding to it
No, make something greater IN SIZE OR VALUE. Had you said mantelpiece ornamentation, or similar, then it would have been fine.
>> And your problem is?
Your little niggly comments, the length of time you bear a petty grudge, the pedantry and other little stuff. They snide way you present facts or use little phrases or adjectives to try and cast aspersions or imply a value judgement.
If you've got something to say, come out and say it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 29 Jun 17 at 21:32
|
>> Your little niggly comments, the length of time you bear a petty grudge, the pedantry
>> and other little stuff. They snide way you present facts or use little phrases or
>> adjectives to try and cast aspersions or imply a value judgement.
Pot>kettle>black
|
|
The victim must be naive or whatever though I suppose an offence has been committed, however eight years, more like eight months would be fair, four months for good behaviour.
|
Its all a bit strange isn't it.
Never met the person, yet prepared to go driving around, go to dinner, watch movies all while wearing a blindfold.
And then get undressed, and engage in sex all blindfolded with a person you've never met?
Surely any reasonable or sensible person would be having a bit of a "hold on just a cotton-picking minute" sort of moment?
Penetrative assault is pretty horrible when you think about it, but 8 years for this one does seem a bit OTT.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 29 Jun 17 at 21:26
|
1 year per inch ?
Good job it wasn't BBD.....or me !
|
Reminded me of this:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Butterfly
If you click on the links to the two principal characters, it becomes a little clearer!
Last edited by: Duncan on Fri 30 Jun 17 at 07:29
|
|
The "victim" should have felt around - for an Adam's apple, such as only a male can sport.
|
Your final sentence is spot on. But this person was after something weird, they just got the wrong sort of weird.
|
Piece in today's Guardian from a reporter who followed the second trail:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/15/gayle-newland-retrial
|
This case still feels a little odd to me!
Does it become sexual assault to have sex with another person on the pretext that you say you are rich then turn out to be poor? Or what if someone were to lie about their faith to bed someone?
Or is someone assaulted to the extent of it being a crime if the one of the parties beds the other on the pretext of being to get it up but cant and uses "equipment"?
Imagine a drunk man getting off with a transvestite man and then going to the police because he was assaulted after he "sobered up"?
I just thought you agree to have sex with the person, not particularly the gender.
I do see the difference between someone coming in to a room who you expect to be someone else but isn't.
|
>> This case still feels a little odd to me!
>>
>> Does it become sexual assault to have sex with another person on the pretext that
>> you say you are rich then turn out to be poor? Or what if someone
>> were to lie about their faith to bed someone?
>>
>>
I think the anomaly between faking your gender and pretending to be richer than you are is stretching it a bit. Let's put it this way, if you went to bed with someone who convinced you they were female and would only let you have oral and/or anal sex in order to disguise the truth, how would you feel when you eventually found out?
This case is very easy to laugh at, the victim appears to have been naive bordering on stupid, but neither of those things are a crime. Newland comes across as both cunning and predatory, any mental health issues aside.
|
So many vieuws when it comes to sexual matters.
A new experience don't have sex blindfolded unless you like a surprise.
|
"A new experience don't have sex blindfolded unless you like a surprise."
Wise words!
|
|
Would the verdict have been different in London? The Guardian journo said the press - probably all liberal London types - thought not guilty.
|
>> Would the verdict have been different in London? The Guardian journo said the press -
>> probably all liberal London types - thought not guilty.
Or to look at it another way a bunch of cynical professionals thought there might just be enough doubt to prevent jury being 'certain' and convicting. An 11-1 majority so I guess they were right in respect of one juror.
|
|
Correct verdict, savage sentence.
|
Sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands to make sure:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6fgPX3NjyA
|
|
Perhaps it could be said that if you decide to go into anything blindfold then it's your own responsibility if you trip up ...
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Sat 22 Jul 17 at 12:40
|
>> Correct verdict, savage sentence.
Hmmmm. Assault by penetration is a savage offence. Judges sentencing remarks not (yet ) published. Guidelines are here:
tinyurl.com/yc7zdp7d (sentencing council website)
Vulnerable victim (clearly not the full shilling), possibly severe psychological harm, significant planning and abuse of trust are all increase culpability. Given max is life and range for sentencing starts at 19 years she's arguably got off lightly.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 22 Jul 17 at 18:47
|
|
I get what you mean Brompt, but it was sort of consensual.
|
"but it was sort of consensual."
A loan-shark getting getting a vulnerable person to sign on the dotted line is 'sort of consensual', but it's not right, is it?
|
>> A loan-shark getting getting a vulnerable person to sign on the dotted line is 'sort
>> of consensual', but it's not right, is it?
Far from it, but I think two years would have been enough. You could glass someone and get less than six.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 23 Jul 17 at 05:01
|
"Far from it, but I think two years would have been enough. You could glass someone and get less than six."
I agree.
|
>> Far from it, but I think two years would have been enough. You could glass
>> someone and get less than six.
I don't think some people here comprehend the true nature of sexual assault.
|
|
I agree. This wasn't some sort of a lark. It was a premeditated, planned, sexual assault on a vulnerable individual.
|
>> I don't think some people here comprehend the true nature of sexual assault.
>>
I disagree, sexual assault is a horrid crime, but so much of this relationship was consensual it is difficult, without the full facts, to see where the consent ended and how much of this was the victims word against the defendants word?
Would the outcome have been different if the defendant used fingers instead of a plastic replica for example?
I don't know if it would but the victim did consent to sex with the person, that is not disputed. What seems to be disputed was the nature of the person she was having sex with and I do wonder if there is not a bit of revenge or spite here?
|
>> I don't think some people here comprehend the true nature of sexual assault.
Having a broken glass ground in your face can't be too pleasant either.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Jul 17 at 01:27
|
"Having a broken glass ground in your face can't be too pleasant either."
But you have to read the Grauniad in order to 'comprehend the true nature of sexual assault'.
|
>> I don't think some people here comprehend the true nature of sexual assault.
Maybe, but I think I do and I think the sentence was severe.
The victim IIRC voluntarily repeated the experience and didn't know she had been assaulted until the identity of the perpetrator became apparent.
I can understand that the effect on the victim may be no less, maybe even worse, than 'standard' rape. It must signify when considering the culpability of the accused, without diminishing in any way the harm done, that the victim went along with it more than once.
I don't think the victim is less deserving of sympathy and support, or any more deserving of blame than any rape victim, but it's pretty clear that the accused had problems too and 'consent' was present even if it was obtained by deception.
A difficult one.
|
>> You could glass someone and get less than six.
If both perp and victim had agreed to 'step outside and resolve it like men' would that make the glassing sort of consensual :-P.
|
>> If both perp and victim had agreed to 'step outside and resolve it like men'
>> would that make the glassing sort of consensual :-P.
The sentence would almost certainly be lighter than one for an unprovoked attack on an innocent party.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 24 Jul 17 at 01:28
|
>> The sentence would almost certainly be lighter than one for an unprovoked attack on an
>> innocent party.
And?
Newland's sentence is 6 yrs where range runs to 19 years with Life a possibility for most serious offences.
|
Not sure where the idea that you only get two years for attaching aomeone with a broken glass comes from.
www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/local-news/hartlepool-woman-jailed-broken-glass-3689901
|
Copper pretends he is someone else.
Befriends an activist.
Beds her.
I would class that as rape - she didn't consent to bed the copper!?
|
|
That's different, she fell for the bloke, the only thing she didn't know is that he was a copper ...
|
>> Copper pretends he is someone else.
>>
>> Befriends an activist.
>>
>> Beds her.
>>
>> I would class that as rape - she didn't consent to bed the copper!?
So she would bed him if he wasn't a copper, and wouldn't if he was?
Nick her for discrimination.
|
|
If you can be found guilty of rape for lying about your job I guess there's a few thousand 'test pilots', 'secret agents' and 'casting directors' out there who must be getting quite worried.
|
>> If you can be found guilty of rape for lying about your job I guess
>> there's a few thousand 'test pilots', 'secret agents' and 'casting directors' out there who must
>> be getting quite worried.
>>
Not to mention West Ham centre forwards and Formula 1 drivers.
Only a complete swine would do that sort of thing, of course...
|
|
Imagine claiming to be a West Ham player impressing people! Different times, I guess.
|
>> Imagine claiming to be a West Ham player impressing people! Different times, I guess.
He's trying to tell you he never scored
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 28 Aug 17 at 20:44
|
|
Don't forget underwater knife fighting stuntmen and then there's all those dolphin trainers.
|
Secret agent, that's the one.
Try it - "the name's 123, Sooty 123 ..."
:-)
|
|
For every test pilot, footballer or secret agent there must be at least a thousand "Single" men who managed to charm a young lady into giving her favours.
|
Boyfriend is really a woman - Roger.
