In the context of the circumstances is this really assault?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-41503393
As a society are we getting too PC, perhaps too sensitive and probably too litigious?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 02:06
|
|
Sounds utterly ridiculous. But who knows how accurately its been reported.
|
Not sure I know of any 'party games' where Lord accepted he had put his hand on the woman's knee for "two to three minutes". would be considered normal.
Assault? Yes - if you presume consent to lay your hands on someone and that consent wasn't actually forthcoming then shiz happens.
Was he overly punished? No. I got a bigger fine doing 90mph in a 60mph zone.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Wed 4 Oct 17 at 23:06
|
|
Sounds like an unwanted advance at worst and the woman surely could have brushed him off or made a scene and embarrassed him ...
|
|
From reading the report I think the Judge actually got it right in his statement. He was lucky to cop a plea for an "assault" and not "sexual assault".
|
Males will be too frightened to kiss females that they fancy without getting written permission from said female, signed, in triplicate and witnessed by the Grand Vizier at least 3, no, 6 months in advance. The female, of course, can withdraw from the agreement at any time and does not have to communicate this to the male!
At this rate the human race is doomed!
|
>>At this rate the human race is doomed!
No bad thing really IMHO.
|
Being offensive, or even inappropriate, should not be against the law. Of course, if it REASONABLY creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact then that is a different matter.
We appear to have forgotten the word "reasonably".
Being offensive is, of course, offensive, but it shouldn't be illegal.
|
What sort of a woman would not complain at the time, or even afterwards to the other person, but have to make it official?
She is happy be involved in >>"This was during the course of party games.
"They were sexualised party games <<
but expects to remain anonymous after her official complaint.
Ridiculous.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 03:22
|
>> She is happy be involved in >>"This was during the course of party games.
>>
>> "They were sexualised party games <<
>>
>> but expects to remain anonymous after her official complaint.
All victims of sexual crimes get anonymity. That's right and proper and well debated law. The fact that the perpetrator copped a plea bargain for a lesser offence doesn't change the victim's right.
And you've no idea where, between 'happy to be involved' and too embarrassed to drop out of this game, her real feelings were.
But I've probably completely misunderstood......
The report contains the line "He thought he was getting on rather well with the complainant." I suspect that may be telling.
|
>> All victims of sexual crimes get anonymity. That's right and proper and well debated law.
And completely wrong because it officially sanctions the belief that being the victim of a sexual assault is something to be ashamed of. We need to develop the attitude that sexual assault is the same as any other assault - a violent attack on an innocent victim who has every right to shout long and loud about it, and should be encouraged to do so. No one would fail to report a mugging, why should it be different for rape? For the answer to that, read my first sentence.
In the long term, that is the only way to prevent the systematic and institutionalised abuse that went on in families, social groups and places like the BBC and now apparently Parliament. It is knowing they are unlikely to be reported that allows the abusers to carry on doing what they do.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 1 Nov 17 at 19:24
|
|
Victims can opt out of anonymity if they want to shout out loud about it.
|
>> Victims can opt out of anonymity if they want to shout out loud about it.
>>
>>
And the official line should be that they are urged to do so because they have nothing to be ashamed of.
|
The official line should be to do whatever makes prosecution and conviction of the guilty most likely.
|
>> The official line should be to do whatever makes prosecution and conviction of the guilty
>> most likely.
>>
That's a very narrow view which is focused on a single victim rather than future potential victims. I'm absolutely with RoR. (Of course I absolutely agree with you that a victim deserves justice and that everything should be done in order to achieve it. But I think RoR raises a very good, wider, point.)
Rape is utterly endemic amongst the young. Nobody is every accused let alone convicted as the victims are too shy to admit to it.
|
>>Rape is utterly endemic amongst the young. Nobody is every accused let alone convicted as the victims are too shy to admit to it.
And ensuring their names are exposed to public scrutiny, including details of defence cross-examination of their sex lives would improve this?
|
>> And ensuring their names are exposed to public scrutiny, including details of defence cross-examination of their sex lives would improve this?
They are too embarrassed because the official attitude encourages the belief that sex assaults are something to be ashamed of. Accused people have to publicly go through the mill whether guilty or not, and the old style examination of a victims sex life has been stopped unless it has specific reference to the case being tried.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 3 Nov 17 at 01:52
|
>>They are too embarrassed because the official attitude encourages the belief that sex assaults are something to be ashamed of.
Official attitude? Really. Where does it state that in Government guff?
It doesn't.
The reasons they are embarrassed include because they are worried about what their peers and society at large would be thinking/gossiping about, and because the effect of rape is to diminish self-worth, self-belief and to feed self-doubt in to thinking 1. no-one will believe your version of events, and 2. part of the blame rests with the victim.
In addition it increases the risk of retribution from friends and family of the accused both directly and socially.
To think removing complainant anonymity will somehow empower victims to feel better about themselves and better about what they suffered is not logical and has no evidence base to support it.
|
>>They are too embarrassed because the official attitude encourages the belief that sex assaults are something to be ashamed of.
Oh stuff and nonsense. They are too embarrassed to report a rape because the salacious media and its readers would like to know all the details of the crime, the person, their sex life, their behaviour over the years etc. etc.
Anonymity for victims should not be necessary, but given the newspaper readership's love of sordid detail in such cases it is unavoidable. Already insufficient cases are reported; and not simply because the victim feels ashamed of her position, but because the general public and the media will do everything they can to humiliate her. (something like 90% are female)
Mind you, they do the same to the accused as well.
Why do the papers and their readers find it so fascinating?
Anonymity for the accuser is the least bad approach.
|
|
Plenty of rape victims walking about every community. They have an absolute right to anonymity under any civilized system of law, so they can get on with their lives without the gossips finger pointing and speculating.
|
|
I agree with that. I also think the accused should have anonymity until proven guilty. That's true in many "crimes" - just see the number of showbiz and other high profile people whose careers have been affected by arrests which subsequently came to nothing.
|
>> Rape is utterly endemic amongst the young.
What? Endemic? And what do you base that assertion on. Certainly my friends with daughters ranging from 25 to 16 would not bear that out.
|
>>Certainly my friends with daughters ranging from 25 to 16 would not bear that out.
You think the girls would tell their parents? You live on another planet.
|
|
Would your daughters tell you Mapmaker?
|
>> >>Certainly my friends with daughters ranging from 25 to 16 would not bear that out.
>>
>> You think the girls would tell their parents? You live on another planet.
So they didn't tell their parents but confided in you. I live on planet earth, no idea where yours is
|
As I recall you and I have daughters, I also believe that Mapmaker does not have children but many young females aged 25 - 16 confide in him with things they would not share with their own families.
Clearly he understands the planet better than you or I, its just a pity its not the same one we live on.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 3 Nov 17 at 16:45
|
I actually think that's a little unfair.
A lot of young people will confide in anyone other than their parents.
It's usually because they need to tell someone and a non relative isn't going to react irrationally.
It's great when youngsters will talk to their parents and it's something that has improved a lot recently but there are still some who won't.
Quite often someone without children looks upon it with a completely different non biased attitude which can be just what they are looking for.
Pat
|
|
Yeah, I expect that's it.
|
|
Yup, I'm sure Mappy is the go to guy.
|
>> I actually think that's a little unfair.
>>
>> A lot of young people will confide in anyone other than their parents.
>>
>> It's usually because they need to tell someone and a non relative isn't going to
>> react irrationally.
>>
>
>>
Absolutely right. In my driving tutor days I was frequently told things by people they would definitely not have told parents or other family members.
|
>> Absolutely right. In my driving tutor days I was frequently told things by people they
>> would definitely not have told parents or other family members.
So all the girls told you rape was endemic?
|
|
I didn't even know that Mappy was a driving instructor.
|
Z said >>So all the girls told you rape was endemic? <<
Mark said >>I didn't even know that Mappy was a driving instructor.<<
Now you're both being facetious and reactionary (and don't call him Mappy either!)
What's so hard about saying 'Yes, well may have a point there'?
Pat
|
>> 'Yes, well may have a point there'?
Sorry.
You may have a point there Zero.
Which is more than Mappy has.
|
>> Rape is utterly endemic amongst the young.
I really, really, doubt that.
My own 'young' are 23 and 24. Both have been thru University and have normal social lives and now have long term partners. Both have given lively accounts of shenanigans at Uni, at festivals and in daughter's case girly trips abroad.
Sure, there's just as much drunken, recreational and regretted sex and realtionships with dodgy boys (and girls) as there ever was. Daughter was watching fly on wall thing about Bulgarian resort she's visited and recognised two tour guides before saying in mock horrified voice 'and Becky from Bristol slept with both of them'. Becky's regular one night stands in term time were apparently audible in her own shared house AND the one next door.
Other then one of The Lad's friends (female) who was taken advantage of while very drunk neither relates anything close to rape.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 5 Nov 17 at 13:21
|
who was taken advantage of while very drunk
Which is Rape.
|
>> Which is Rape.
Exactly.
|
>>We need to develop the attitude that sexual assault is the same as any other assault
That will never happen, because of the question of consent.
Few people will blame the victim if an accused gets off an assault charge.
Not so with rape where the congress is admitted and the issue is consent. It becomes a trial for the victim, usually the only witness, as well as the accused.
|
1 Clearly this was assault within the meaning of the law.
2 Anyone who is the victim of a crime has the right to the protection of the courts
It is wrong to criticise those who avail themselves of that right.
|
OK, you defend her action but if anyone does that to me this is what I do.
It doesn't have to be forceful or even embarrassing so anyone can find the courage to do it.
I quietly but firmly pick up his hand from my knee and put it back on his own knee. I then lean over and whisper in his ear 'You can have that back and if you do it again I will stand up and scream....very loudly'.
I then turn away and ignore them.
I learned that when I had a particularly obnoxious MD who thought his position could let him do what he wants when I was a rep. It cured him.
Now, let's look at this rationally.
Simply because she couldn't deal with this herself this man has probably had both his career and his marriage damaged, he reputation shot to pieces while her failings are being protected....is that fair?
Pat
|
|
Not everyone is as assertive as you Pat. Each case is different.
|
I would argue that isn't assertive.
Tactful, effective, discreet are some of the words I would use but certainly not assertive.
Standing up and screaming loudly would be assertive.
Pat
|
It's not a question of "fairness". It's the law. Once we criticise people for using the law we are on a slippery slope.
|
>> 1 Clearly this was assault within the meaning of the law.
>>
No, from what we know that's not clear.
>> 2 Anyone who is the victim of a crime has the right to the protection of the courts
>>
The question is was there really a victim.
|
"No, from what we know that's not clear"
Maybe someone should post the case-papers. Opinions formed from a brief news report !! CPS thought it was worthy to bring to Court and he pleaded guilty...obviously his defence thought he stood a fair chance of being convicted.
|
>> Opinions formed from a brief news report !!>>
I said "from what we know" ...
|
>> Here let me help you out...
>>
Why do you have to patronise? It's a discussion ...
|
>> >> Here let me help you out...
>>
>> Why do you have to patronise? It's a discussion ...
Wikipedia says (UK law):
"A person commits an assault if they perform an act (which does not for this purpose include a mere omission to act) by which they intentionally or recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate unlawful violence [my emphasis]."
Really?! A hand on a knee caused her to apprehend immediate unlawful violence?
|
>>As a society are we getting too PC, perhaps too sensitive and probably too litigious?
Yes, yes, and um, yes.
|
Maybe his hand moved a little higher than her knee.
Party games is dodgy business.
|
This kind of mild "assault" only works one way. Most women now asume they have the right to cheek-kiss as a greeting or farewell. Real friends know I don't like it, but some persist and try to make me feel uncomfortable, chiding me that everybody does it, or we're all part of Europe now.
I don't understand what makes them think they have the right to push into my personal space. A time-honoured proffered handshake is much more civilised and non-threatening - it's a tentative offer just across the boundary, which can seized eagerly and clasped, or politely and briefly returned, depending on the circumstances.
Women can think it's OK to touch someone, as a gesture or conversational aid. Men have to be very careful not to be taken as behaving inappropriately. Why the different standards?
|
|
I really can't believe there is not more to this, I sincerely hope there is, because as it stands its pathetic.
|
Who in their right mind plays sexualised party games with work colleagues?
That's all.
|
Putting a hand on someone's knee for 2-3 minutes can quite easily constitute groping which is a sexual assault.
He plea bargained from a low level sexual assault to a low level common assault and received a low level punishment.
Simples.
|
>>Mr Duvall said the woman had not felt able to express her concern but when Lord's partner left the table, she followed her to the kitchen.
He said Lord was "apologetic and left without question" when the issue was raised.
"He was emphatic that his actions, however unwise, were not sexual in nature."
<<
So from the above it seems she followed his partner into kitchen and must have spoken to her/him about it for the 'issue to be raised'
His actions upon that were entirely apologetic and correct.
Why was there any need for it to go any further?
I can't believe you men all seem to want the bloke to be hung out to dry, yet defend a woman who it seems to me has been very vindictive.
Pat
|
Maybe he shouldn't have plead guilty then?
Maybe his version of events is a sanitised version at odds with what his hand was actually doing for 2-3 minutes.
By pleading guilty he doesn't have to be cross-examined and his version of events taken apart.
>> Hung out to dry?
Hardly - £100 compo and costs for an unwelcome and prolonged unpleasant (totally not sexual) assault seems about right.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 11:55
|
|
That is another issue entirely....my working world (figuratively) lifting a manhole on the sewer that runs through this region. My daily diet of sexual and domestic violence certainly skews one's view of the world. A lot worse happens that isn't reported I guess. Why this woman chose to report this is up to her in the final analysis, the fact that it was reported, taken seriously and dealt with is important.
|
|
<> I've removed this post as it potentially libellous, I get the drift of what you're saying and as suggested it could have done with a mild re-write ?
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 12:27
|
Snip - sorry about this for the same reasons
That's never been mentioned and is exactly what I meant about the bloke has been hung out to dry.
Reputation/ career/ relationships for Lygonos, to make it clear.
Pat
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 12:38
|
|
So the allegation should have been brushed under the carpet then Pat ?
|
RP, I've made my stance on this quite clear.
The allegation should never have been made.
Attending that type of event means there is some expectation of the type of event it will be.
All the people involved had consumed alcohol.
If the person was unhappy with the turn of events she could simply have left and gone home.
She could have done as I said in my initial post about it.
There were many things she could have done that would have caused less damage to the man involved and less expense to the investigating officers and court.
There are a lot of people who have had careers and relationships ruined by a scorned female....and vice versa, and I don't think our judicial system is in a position (or should be used) to support that.
Pat
|
Totally agree Pat.
She could have humiliated him in front of friends and colleagues, she could have poured a glass of wine over his head, though reporting it to the police - from what we know - seems inappropriate.
|
"though reporting it to the police - from what we know - seems inappropriate"
From what I've read, it sounds like a waste of police and m'lud's time. I wonder how much this all cost - I doubt that '£200 costs' will cover it.
|
I agree with you Pat - the "what Lord may have done in the past" is irrelevant to our views on the case, but equally seeing the complainant as "very vindictive" isn't something we can be sure of (although you can't libel an anonymous person so is on less shaky ground!)
>>Reputation/ career/ relationships for Lygonos, to make it clear
I assume you mean the real damage to Lord is the non-financial effects - unfortunately from his point of view, considering he plead guilty to a criminal assault, is tough.
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 12:38
|
Because I'm surmising reasons other than vindictiveness as to why the complainant might have pursued the issue. While previous conduct is irrelevant to his conviction it can certainly be driver for choosing a specific instance to make an example.
Last edited by: R.P. on Thu 5 Oct 17 at 12:39
|
|
Sorry had to take a scalpel to Bromp's comment but didn't want to lose the thread so to speak.
|
|
One does wonder what other reasons there could be for reporting a matter like this to the police ...
|
>> Why was there any need for it to go any further?
Knee jerk reaction maybe ;)
|
>>Knee jerk reaction maybe ;)
www.badum-tish.com/
|
>> Women can think it's OK to touch someone, as a gesture or conversational aid. Men
>> have to be very careful not to be taken as behaving inappropriately. Why the different
>> standards?
It's certainly true that women are more likely to touch as a gesture and it be treated as normal or at least tolerated. Reason? probably because there's not the same long history of 'copping a feel' for reasons of sex and/or power play; Trump and Harvey Weinstein for example.
My female manager is a bit tactile. First time I met her she was deputising as a session supervisor while I was dispensing telephone advice. I'd found the answer to client's question myself - aftermath of a court or tribunal case about effect of overtime earnings on holiday pay. As she left room she stopped and passed on some sort of thank you/appreciation message (as you're taught at manager's school) but surprised me somewhat by touching my knee as she did so.
|
She probably fancied you Bromp!
Actually I'm with Cliff on this one and quite like my own personal space.........consequently I try not to invade others either.
Pat
|
>> Reason? probably because there's not the same
>> long history of 'copping a feel' for reasons of sex and/or power play;
No as historically women were not the bosses. However that comes into play these days. e.g.:
>> but surprised me somewhat by
>> touching my knee as she did so.
Utterly inappropriate. If you were to do that to one of your subordinate females you would - rightly - be up against a disciplinary panel. Why the double standard?
Why can't people realise that the work environment is not like being out with your friends? I don't get it.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 10 Oct 17 at 17:29
|
"Utterly inappropriate."
Presumably, it isn't OK to give someone a pat on the back any more.
|
>>"Utterly inappropriate<<
Yes, but surely easily dealt with by a pleasant remark such as a firm 'I'd rather you didn't do that please'.
I think this is what HC and I have been getting at.
It seems that now everyone prefers there to be some protocol, or PC rule to prevent them from having to make what they may feel, an unpleasant remark themselves.
If this carries on we'll all be walking with a stoop due to the loss of a backbone.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 10 Oct 17 at 17:53
|
>>>"Utterly inappropriate<<
>
>Yes, but surely easily dealt with by a pleasant remark such as a firm 'I'd rather you didn't do
>that please'.
In my experience there is very little in human interaction which cannot be dealt with in exactly that way.
Probably not nothing, but very little in the scheme of things. I do hope that in the case of investigations the question is asked as to whether that was said or done.
|
>>Yes, but surely easily dealt with by a pleasant remark
Indeed. But what sort of an idiot puts themselves in that position in the first place. That's my question!
|
Maybe it is assault, but it's a poor do when grown up people, given offence in a situation where there is clearly no actual physical danger or threat, have to resort to law.
Perhaps, if they were work colleagues, there was a bullying or discriminatory dimension to this.
|
|
I wonder if R.P might snip that Manatee, though it seems that they may be more too it.
|
Julia Hartley-Brewer says
>>By all means, let’s tackle harassment in Westminster, but let’s remember not every male MP is a sex pest, far from it, and not every woman is a victim.
Indeed, when we turn every mild indiscretion, clumsy pass or drunken remark into a crime, that does nothing to help the genuine victims of sexual harassment.
So before we continue with this witch-hunt, I would advise everyone to Get A Grip — just as long as they don’t grip my knee, of course.
<<
Thank goodness that common sense prevails in this ridiculous on-going saga.
Pat
|
>>Thank goodness that common sense prevails in this ridiculous on-going saga.
Sadly whilst it exists, it rarely seems to prevail.
|
Defence secretary Michael Fallon resigns because "He put his hand on a female journalist's knee fifteen years ago".
God almighty, this is beyond ridiculous.
|
>> Defence secretary Michael Fallon resigns because "He put his hand on a female journalist's knee
>> fifteen years ago".
>>
>> God almighty, this is beyond ridiculous.
>>
A liitle more to it I think.
But friends of Fallon suggested there may have been similar such incidents more recently, saying, “he would absolutely concede that some of the flirtation has been inappropriateâ€.
In his resignation letter to May, Fallon said: “A number of allegations have surfaced about MPs in recent days, including some about my previous conduct.
“Many of these have been false but I accept in the past I have fallen below the high standards that we require of the armed forces that I have the honour to represent.
“I have reflected on my position and I am now resigning as defence secretary.â€
|
>>God almighty, this is beyond ridiculous.
Damage limitation exercise.
He's resigned because of the stuff we don't know.
Yet.
|
...I think he's resigned because he'd prefer to be remembered as having been accused of sexual harassment rather than having been a member of a government which drove Britain aimlessly and headlong into Brexit.....
....for him, it's a price worth paying!
;-)
|
|
Being a crap defence minister probably doesn't help.
|
>> He's resigned because of the stuff we don't know.
>>
>> Yet.
Yup. Suspect one of the Sunday scandal sheets has a 'scoop' pending for publication.
|
>> Yup. Suspect one of the Sunday scandal sheets has a 'scoop' pending for publication.
More today. Alleged use of lewd and/or sexually explicit language with Andrea Leadsom before either was in Cabinet. He's denying it.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 3 Nov 17 at 07:01
|
R U INSURED FOR SEX ?
The following is a list of the correct insurance companies for sex.
SEX with your wife - Legal & General
SEX with your future wife - Mutual Trust
SEX with your secretary - Employers Liability
SEX with a prostitute - Commercial Union
SEX on the telephone - Direct line
SEX with your biographer - Quote me happy
SEX in a hurry- Insure & Go
|
Unless it is rape or serious sexual assault it is surely not constructive to judge yesterday's actions by today's standards.
Pinching bottoms and such like was common in the 60's and 70's, it featured in comedies such as Are You Being Served (along with the related innuendo) should the now old Mr Grace's of this world be prosecuted? If it comes to race, I am sure that there are many people who used the "N" word 40 years ago who would be shocked if they heard it today, should society go after them retrospectively or accept that they have moved on with society, that they are part of today's society?
|
>>common in the 60's and 70's
15 years ago was 2002.
The Leadsom stuff was 6 years ago.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 3 Nov 17 at 13:26
|
Why didn't she go public with it 6 years ago?
Pat
|
>> Why didn't she go public with it 6 years ago?
I don't know, but it prompts a question;
In law what does conviction require proof of?
1) The victim's reaction was significant/shock/distress?
2) A reasonable person's reaction would be significant/shock/distress?
3) That he did it?
3), in all cases i assume. But does it also require 1) or 2) or neither?
|
>>But does it also require 1) or 2) or neither?
If the 'victim' was not bothered and in a position to give consent then presumably the only possible offences would be breach of the peace if it made others feel threatened, or that old favourite 'outraging public decency'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outraging_public_decency
Last edited by: Lygonos on Fri 3 Nov 17 at 14:01
|
Not sure about that.
If I give you my consent to take my property, its not theft.
If I am not bothered about you taking my property, its still theft.
If you stole and I wasn't bothered at the time, but then decided later that actually it did bother me and I reported it, that doesn't really change you guilt levels, does it?
Ditto if I was too scared to report it or otherwise felt unable but then later felt able.
|
>> Why didn't she go public with it 6 years ago?
>>
>> Pat
Short version: Wrong time then, right time now.
With detail:
At the time she was a newly elected greenhorn back bencher and Fallon was a former opposition spokesman, member of the 1922 committee and tipped for Ministerial office. In other words there was the power gradient that almost invariably features in these sort of cases.
Wind forward to now. Both are cabinet Ministers. She is (arguably if you like) floundering in her job. Well out of her depth in a cabinet riven by squabbles and reportedly out of favour with PM. Fallon, and perhaps others, have been trying since the recess to undermine her. Suddenly, driven by events external to Parliament (Weinstein), it's open season on inappropriate sexualised behaviour. She sees her opportunity (a) disclose the assault and (b) to sink one of her opponents as others he's hit on in the past also come forward.
Another question. If she reported this confidentially who leaked?
|
Exactly my thoughts too Bromp.
Pat
|
>> >>common in the 60's and 70's
>>
>> 15 years ago was 2002.
>>
>> The Leadsom stuff was 6 years ago.
>>
Yes - though standards aren't a matter of regular steps (except perhaps post suffrage, post Saville etc), it's a matter of progressive change and there may well be measureable differences over 15 years, particularly with Saville in mind.
Leadsom's claims (if she has actually made any personally) are unproven though in that case is an inappropriate remark, perhaps a clumsy attempt at praise, enough for someone to lose their job, yet alone be prosecuted?
|
>> yet alone be prosecuted?
Who has been prosecuted?
>>there may well be measureable differences over 15 years
Not quite sure which metrics would be used to measure this
And 15 years ago if I groped one of my staff or colleagues at a Xmas dinner or other event I would expect much the same outcome as would happen today.
Perhaps today the recipient would be less willing to accept such behaviour and organisations are more open to complaint - the law on sexual assault is much the same as it was.
|
>>Leadsom's claims (if she has actually made any personally) are unproven though in that case is an inappropriate remark, perhaps a clumsy attempt at praise, enough for someone to lose their job, yet alone be prosecuted?<<
Alternatively, could it be that what she suffered at the time wasn't sufficient to possibly risk her career path?
Six years later that same suffering begins to look like a better move?
Lygonos, 'ask her' is hardly a reasonable answer, is it?
You seem to be defending this sort of action, so obviously the board would be interested in your answer to that question.
Pat
|
>>so obviously the board would be interested in your answer to that question.
My answer is appropriate - I don't know her.
I'm also not going to come up with some spurious libellous nonsense for the same reason.
>>You seem to be defending this sort of action
The right to complain about potential breaches of the Law? Sure.
Vexatious complaints without foundation? Obviously not.
|
Two more MPs with allegations levelled at them.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41867416
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41866970
I wonder how many more there are to come?
|
There's a bit of a theory, which I haven't checked, that the majority of these are BREXITers, and that teh whole thing is a conspiracy to replace them with Remain MPs to thwart the process.
I laughed out loud when I first read it, but, scarily, it seems people really believe it.
Mind you, everything is being blamed on either Mother Theresa or BREXIT at the moment. Just look at comments under BBC articles...
|
>> There's a bit of a theory, which I haven't checked, that the majority of these
>> are BREXITers, and that teh whole thing is a conspiracy to replace them with Remain
>> MPs to thwart the process.
>>
>> I laughed out loud when I first read it, but, scarily, it seems people really
>> believe it.
>>
>> Mind you, everything is being blamed on either Mother Theresa or BREXIT at the moment.
>> Just look at comments under BBC articles...
>>
Deranged people vote for Brexit, deranged people are sex perverts. QED!
:-)
Of course its madness. There is an attraction to powerful people and powerful feel empowered to "try it on".
Numerous affairs in the office, with attractive junior females and awful, very much older, sleazy directors. One would have thought the girls would have much more fun going out with a fit lad their in their own age group!
I think some females think they are being harassed if a guy asks them out once. That's just a guy doing what is natural. More than that, after a refusal it is clearly harassment, as is any unwanted touching.
|
I would not condone this behaviour, it's despicable, though is it really molestation?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42297612
|
|
I would yes, it's unwanted touching. What would you call it?
|
|
I can’t see how it could be possibly be anything else in the circumstances, surely?
|
>> I would not condone this behaviour, it's despicable, though is it really molestation?
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-42297612
How about if someone treated your daughter like that?
If he says it was inadvertent and not sexual would you believe him?
Otherwise it's molestation and/or assault.
|
>>How about if someone treated your daughter like that?
I'd hurt him.
But later my daughter and I would be having a pretty strong conversation about how she had managed the situation.
|
>> But later my daughter and I would be having a pretty strong conversation about how
>> she had managed the situation.
I agree but the 'don't want to make a scene' thing isn't just British.
|
>> but the 'don't want to make a scene' thing isn't just British.
Not being difficult, I don't quite get your meaning? Do you mean others follow the same philosophy? If so it is a poor excuse and not one I would accept from my child under those circumstances.
Assuming we have the right of it, it was assault. However, the girl concerned, rather than suffering in silence and making noise afterwards, should have complained to a staff member, turned around and given him a mouthful, or hurt his foot badly.
Again, assuming we have the right facts, he was a scumbag that I would delight in harming, but she allowed it to escalate when she could have dealt with it without personal risk and much more effectively.
|
>> Not being difficult, I don't quite get your meaning? Do you mean others follow the
>> same philosophy? If so it is a poor excuse and not one I would accept
>> from my child under those circumstances.
You've got my point exactly. It's not only the Brits who don't want to make a fuss or seem rude by assertively contradicting/challenging this stuff. An Irish friend of mine was (many years ago) far too polite in challenging me over a mistaken statement about her native language.
My late Mother recalled men at the bank in Leeds she worked for who thought it acceptable to place their hand on her knee. She regarded this as not worth bothering with unless there was movement towards her stocking tops.
|
>> agree but the 'don't want to make a scene' thing <<
Until after the event, sometimes way after the event, when it can be accompanied by photo's in the Press and all the publicity?
Or even more cynically, until after the accused isn't actually present to say his piece too.
Pat
|
>> Until after the event, sometimes way after the event, when it can be accompanied by
>> photo's in the Press and all the publicity?
I'm not saying such a thing could never happen or even that it has never happened. But it's far more rare then you suggest.
See the sentencing remarks in Clifford which I linked to on relevant thread. Or those for Rolf Harris and for a whole series of witnesses at the Savile inquiry.
|
But in this scenario, whatever was wrong in calling the steward (ess) and quietly explaining what had happened and asking for her to deal with it discreetly as she was very embarrassed to have to report it?
It would be the normal course of action to take for the vast majority of women.
Pat
|
>> But in this scenario, whatever was wrong in calling the steward (ess) and quietly explaining
>> what had happened and asking for her to deal with it discreetly as she was
>> very embarrassed to have to report it?
I don't know. It's what I'd expect my daughter to do.
But it's a hell of a leap from didn't call the stewardess to 'consenting'.
|
Of course it is, but that's a leap you're trying to make.....I never mentioned or even implied that she had consented.
Just remarked that any complainants now seem to time their complaint to have maximum publicity for themselves, instead of just doing what comes naturally for the rest of us.
Pat
|
>> Of course it is, but that's a leap you're trying to make.....I never mentioned or
>> even implied that she had consented.
>>
>> Just remarked that any complainants now seem to time their complaint to have maximum publicity
>> for themselves, instead of just doing what comes naturally for the rest of us.
In the original party game scenario in this thread you appear to suggest (Thu 5 Oct 17 03:19) that the complainant was if not fully consenting then at least complicit. You seem to be close to same line here.
I think you're wrong.
|
I think you're wrong to assume my opinion of one case has to cast a slant on my opinion of a completely different case and a completely different set of circumstances.
The two, in my mind certainly, (and should be in yours too) have no comparison whatsoever.
What you seem to forget Bromp is that this sort of thing is fairly common place for women in normal day to day life but we deal with it. Discreetly and immediately and no-one else ever hears of it.
The cases you highlight are those who don't feel the need, or have the the ability to do that, which are by far in a minority.
Cynical I may be, but many of those cases seem to wallow in the ensuing publicity when they finally find the 'courage' to go public.
You only have to look at their careers, film or book deals and in all cases, it will benefit from the exposure.
If they were truly embarrassed by it and somewhat traumatised they would want it dealt with discreetly and promptly, or on the other hand they may just make sure they never put themselves in the position where they would let that happen again.......which is what most of us do.
But no doubt, you as a man.........will know better!
Pat
|
>> What you seem to forget Bromp is that this sort of thing is fairly common
>> place for women in normal day to day life but we deal with it.
You might what to get off your high horse. Apart from being a long way down it's cold up there :-)
I am of course aware that this is common stuff for women. When it comes to discrimination and the like I subscribe to the food chain analogy. In that model, as a male who's white, straight, Anglo-Saxon and could pass as CofE I am a Blue Whale. On the other hand I've a female partner of thirty years standing and a daughter. I've also worked with and managed people who've been upset by colleagues' sexist behaviour.
There are all sorts of reasons from power inequality as in 'they wont believe you and /or I'll kill your career' (again, I'd urge you to read the sentencing remarks in R v Clifford) to embarrassment an on to 'how the f*** did I let that happen in first place'.
If you're assertive enough to (quietly) threaten to kick their c****** into the middle of next week that's fine.
But please don't try and say (a) you're standing up for women and (b) but many of those cases seem to wallow in the ensuing publicity when they finally find the 'courage' to go public.
Those two approaches are diametrically opposed; (b) is exactly the line of Clifford, Savile, Harris and all the rest used to belittle and control their victims.
But no doubt I've misunderstood.
|
There is truth in what you say Bromp, but even you must acknowledge that in some of these cases the wish not to make a fuss, to avoid attention suddenly seems to pale into insignificance as they take to Twitter, to Facebook, to the media etc. etc.
Those people sadly harm the case of the genuinely shy and intimidated.
|
>> There is truth in what you say Bromp, but even you must acknowledge that in
>> some of these cases the wish not to make a fuss, to avoid attention suddenly
>> seems to pale into insignificance as they take to Twitter, to Facebook, to the media
>> etc. etc.
>
Undoubtedly but so what?If an assault genuinely has taken place whatever action the victim chooses to take has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a crime has taken place.
The logic that those who publicise their case somehow harms other victims of similar crimes is perverse. It is the very fact that men and women have kept quiet over the years that led to so much suffering and pain. The more publicity that is give to this behaviour the quicker the idea that men can get away with will reduce.
|
I don't want to get involved with this one really but there was a film on the Beeb site today and I watched it and thought that flirting is slowly going to be killed off if someone can't even make a cheeky remark or two without it making front page news.
I realise I am seeing it from a male perspective but I know females who would agree wholeheartedly, from generations other than my own. Shame they don't have the courage (or maybe are not given the air-space) to make their position known.
And I'm absolutely clear that there is a line beyond which it is no longer flirting.
|
>> There is truth in what you say Bromp, but even you must acknowledge that in
>> some of these cases the wish not to make a fuss, to avoid attention suddenly
>> seems to pale into insignificance as they take to Twitter, to Facebook, to the media
>> etc. etc.
I get that entirely. But a proportion of those taking to Twitter etc are doing the 'me too' thing after sudden confidence boost when activities of Weinstein etc are psuddenly public.
And I'd bet that, like me, you've had in an entirely non sexual context that moment where you and a colleague have had sudden realisation that a senior has made same egregious threat to both of you.
|
I know that I'm not going to explain this well, though I know what I'm trying to say, do try to remember that I have daughters and so am fundamentally aware of the issues and dangers have strong feelings about assault.......
Assault is, in many cases, dependent upon how it is received. It has to be unwanted, offensive, harmful etc. etc.
On occasions I struggle to believe that the contact fulfilled those standards, mostly where it seems to be fully exploited by the 'victim' at a later date.
I also agree with Pat, I think, in that there is a responsibility and a participation implicit in living in a society and that requires effort and input from all.
Being offensive should not be against the law. So walking up to a woman and saying "I want to kiss you" should not be an offence per se, though it may well be offensive.
Threatening, intimidating, forcing or otherwise making that person feel like they have no choice is a different matter.
So like the hand on the knee at the party, it started out as offensive but surely became an offence if he refused to remove it or otherwise intimidated the woman into allowing it to be there. If she said nothing until later, then that is relevant I think.
I think this girl should have said something. To the man, or to the hostess. If she was scared to, that is a different matter. But anything like "didn't want to make a fuss" just devalues it to me.
If "making a fuss" would upset/embarass her to a level, then one must assume that the assault bothered her less than that level surely?
Don't get me wrong, some of this stuff should most definitely be dealt with by the law, but not every moment of our interaction with other people, even if offensive.
|
>> On occasions I struggle to believe that the contact fulfilled those standards, mostly where it
>> seems to be fully exploited by the 'victim' at a later date.
I'm not saying this never happens, just that the other thing, where circs mean victim finally gains courage at later date is more likely/
>> Being offensive should not be against the law. So walking up to a woman and
>> saying should not be an offence per se, though it
>> may well be offensive.
Turned on it's head it doesn't need to be illegal to be offensive. If I bought a woman a drink in a nightclub then said "I want to kiss you" that's one thing. If I said "I want to kiss you" to a 17yo apprentice at work it'd be offensive. Same if I said it to either of my (much younger than me) female supervisors.
>> Threatening, intimidating, forcing or otherwise making that person feel like they have no choice is
>> a different matter.
Agree
>> If she said nothing until later, then that
>> is relevant I think.
Relevant maybe; but far from conclusive.
>> I think this girl should have said something. To the man, or to the hostess.
>> If she was scared to, that is a different matter. But anything like "didn't want
>> to make a fuss" just devalues it to me.
What's real difference between "didn't want to make a fuss" and scared?
>> If "making a fuss" would upset/embarass her to a level, then one must assume that
>> the assault bothered her less than that level surely?
Well that's where I differ from you and Pat. I don't think you can make assumption that one can minimise impact of assault based on a reaction that was inhibited by other factors.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 11 Dec 17 at 21:55
|
>>What's real difference between "didn't want to make a fuss" and scared?
Huge. Absolutely huge. Scared to take an action is one thing. Not feeling particularly fussed about it, certainly not enough to outweigh not willing to make a fuss is a whole 'nother thing.
Quite how you can tell the difference for sure though, I have no idea.
But there is a difference.
>>Well that's where I differ from you and Pat. I don't think you can make assumption that one can minimise impact of assault based on a reaction that was inhibited by other factors.
I think if you used articles your sentences would make more sense to me. I struggle to grasp them sometimes.
I think it depends very much on the other factor. Essentially how significant or powerful was that factor?
"I didn't complain because I was scared"; the pother factor there is fear, that makes the assault worse in my mind.
"I didn't complain because I was a bit tired"; the other factor there is how bothered the person was, in this example clearly not very, and that makes the assault lesser, perhaps much lesser, in my mind.
It may well be impossible to know for sure what one is genuinely dealing with, but that is another matter. And of course once can make assumptions; Aren't you making an assumption that a hand up your skirt is both offensive and an assault?
The issue with assumptions is that they are that, an assumption, not certain knowledge and not always right.
But since human behaviour is not constant, consistent or binary, then using the law to govern interaction will forever be at least somewhat unsatisfactory.
|
>>I don't think you can make assumption that one can minimise impact of assault based on a reaction that was inhibited by other factors
I'm going to agree with the B-man on this.
PTSD is a form of negative psychological outcome often years after events that may have been tolerated/survived at the time, but become more pronounced with time, rather than regress.
Adults in their 50s and 60s who are divulging abuses endured in their formative years are perhaps an extreme version of this.
Sometimes it can take people a while to actually comprehend the magnitude of an event that has occurred to them...
...and, yes, perhaps mis-remembered over time in the case of things from months/years ago and this is probably more prevalent than many people realise - how often do you remember a certain series of events from the past that is recalled differently by someone else who was also there?
Nevertheless Pat and NoFM2R highlight other, less salubrious reasons why someone may put their head above the parapet years later.
|
"Nevertheless Pat and NoFM2R highlight other, less salubrious reasons why someone may put their head above the parapet years later."
They do but I woild reiterate my point. If the assault actually occurred, and I accept that this may be difficult to prove, then it matters not what their reasons are for disclosing it. It does not change the fact that there was an assault nor indeed does the affect it had on them. A crime is a crime whatever the effect it has on the victim.
|
>>Sometimes it can take people a while to actually comprehend the magnitude of an event that has occurred to them.
Absolutely. And we should make sure that this is understood and explored. However, I am not really talking about those types of cases.
>>Nevertheless Pat and NoFM2R highlight other, less salubrious reasons why someone may put their head above the parapet years later.
For this reason, I think the automatic vilification of someone because of an accusation, even if the events actually occurred, is wrong.
The fact that it happened is, of course, important. But the circumstances, the reactions, thoughts, the feeling, the effects and the impacts are important in the trial and thus the verdict and sentence, and should be just as damned important to the media and public.
And for me, the balance is swayed to one degree or another when shortly after the event, when maximum publicity can suddenly be obtained, the 'victim' remembers how bad it all was.
And another thing that bothers me about the "I didn't want to make a fuss at the time" is exactly as I explain it to my daughters - if you don't make a fuss, then it will continue to happen to others, perhaps by this same man. Make a fuss. It is your right AND your responsibility.
|
What an interesting this discussion has turned out to be and so good to see alternative views which at the very least, make me think it through again.
I am 100% with Mark on this one and he has put much better than I could have done, my feelings on this so there really isn't much to add.
CG says >>If the assault actually occurred, and I accept that this may be difficult to prove, then it matters not what their reasons are for disclosing it. It does not change the fact that there was an assault nor indeed does the affect it had on them.<<
The problem I have with that is the first five words. 'If the attack actually occurred'
I'm not saying that by waiting to report it means it didn't occur.
It seems so grossly unfair on the accused who is named and labelled immediately as guilty in friends, family and the public's eye.
Had the report or accusation been made at the time then surely an apology or an explanation that it was a misunderstanding/misread situation, could have brought the whole thing to a satisfactory solution for both sides?
Many a marriage has broken down due to accusations whether true or false and it can have long reaching effects for the whole family.
The balance for me is certainly swayed by the way the victim decides to handle this and I would hope any judge would take this into account as well.
I see the point about being empowered by others reporting it and totally understand that happens and why but I don't think it is always the case.
>> if you don't make a fuss, then it will continue to happen to others, perhaps by this same man. Make a fuss. It is your right AND your responsibility.<<
That's the best advice anyone could give ...and doing that is being empowered.
Pat
|
>>(a) you're standing up for women and<<
Well, you've certainly misunderstood that bit, in fact I really don't know where you've got that impression from.
I don't stand up for women, I expect them, like men, to grow a backbone and stand up for themselves.
I accept it isn't easy and is in fact, harder for some, but if it hurts enough they will find a way.
The way we're seeing in the Media at the moment isn't that way.
High horse? Watch out for fog on your pedestal:)
Pat
|
However the woman chose to handle the incident of after the events does not change the fact that this was assault pure and simple.
This is a a good example of the whole historical problem in these cases. The public and indeed court discussion is turned from the perpetrators actions to those of the victim. What the victim does after the assault. is totally irrelevant.
Society really needs to change its views if real progress is to be made.
|
|
I can’t see how, on a plane, anyone’s foot can persistently be in contact with some else’s neck without it being deliberate. Maybe in economy, by the window, you could fit your foot between the seat and the side of the cabin, but you’d also know there was someone in the seat in front...
|
|
Agreed, the foot on neck thing sounds incredibly weird.
|
|
Some kind of assault maybe, though is it really molestation?
|
Assuming you now accept it is an assault, and then assuming that he wouldn't have done it to a male passenger, I think that concludes the query.
Molestation can be either sexual, or simply persistent (harassment if you will) although that is more of a historic meaning.
|
|
Since persistent or agressive harassment is molestation, I’d say yes it was.
|
>> Some kind of assault maybe, though is it really molestation?
>>
I don't really see a huge amount of difference, unless there's a need to dance about with precise legal definitions. It's illegal in a civilised country.
your point is about the precise name/nature of the crime?
|
It's wrong and the person responsible is likely to get into trouble - I hope they do.
How anyone could wonder if this was okay is beyond me.
|
No one is wondering if it's OK, read the thread again!
I said that it's despicable behaviour and that it should be described as somekind of assault, the question is whether it constitutes molestation.
Clearly there is a difference between a foot touching a back and neck, and say groping breasts etc, and forcing a sexual act, and rape.
Our language needs to be able to gauge and describe the seriousness of an offence.
|
>> As a society are we getting too PC, perhaps too sensitive and probably too litigious?
But this case is not okay. But you then use it as an example about us being too PC!
Read your own thread! You are using this to suggest you think this was okay. It's is a form of assault and the person doing it is in the wrong. You probably agree I think. But with the latest outburst I'm not sure.
If Max Clifford had not assaulted women he'd have not been locked up. He might have lived longer if he was not jailed when so old.... but he did the crime and thought he could get away with it. Next celeb to die in custody is probably Rolf Harris.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 11 Dec 17 at 01:25
|
>>Next celeb to die in custody is probably Rolf Harris.
Only if he's arrested again. He's not in Jail, is he?
|
|
No RTJ, look at my post dated Sun 10th @ 1803, it's a different point.
|
Leave hand on women's knee is looking for trouble.
Sometimes slap in face will happen.Not a very intelligent thing to do for a so called intelligent chap.
|
I think in this thread, like many on this forum, posters need to remember that there is black and there is white.
In the middle of those two colours there are many shades of grey.
Just because some of us don't see either black or white it certainly doesn't warrant us being accused of the complete opposite.
Take note please because it's a particularly unintelligent way to try to win a point or make the other person wrong.
....and it discourages any further debate.
Pat
|
|
I genuinely don't get your point Pat. Its clearly my week for being thick. What did you mean?
|
I probably didn't make my point very clearly.
It always seems that if anyone offers *some* defence, or a more moderate view on an emotive subject such as such as sexual abuse, race, politics then there are a few on here who always accuse them of automatically being of the opposing view.
Example: A: says White is correct. B) says Black is correct.
C: says hang on a minute there are some blurred lines around here so it may be that both are a bit correct.
A) then accuses C) of believing Black is correct.
C) then has to spend ages defending his position which never existed in the first place so it's easier not to bother to point out the middle ground in the first place.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 12 Dec 17 at 03:59
|
I get you, I think.
Everything is easier in absolutes. Law, fact, truth, etc. etc. Anything is easier to opine on, feel about, or enact if it is a binary calculation.
But human interaction, opinion and emotion are shades.
That's what makes governing human interaction with the law so unsatisfactory, though at this time there is not much of an alternative.
However, in an argument, we all tend to reduce things to basics and absolutes, it becomes too difficult to put one's point across otherwise.
|
>>so it's easier not to bother to point out the middle ground in the first place.<<
>> it becomes too difficult to put one's point across otherwise.<<
By the lack of anymore posts on here it would appear we're both spot on:)
Pat
|
|
Yeah probably. Or maybe people have gone outside to play in the snow and ice today :-)
|
Too b***** cold here for that Smokie, I have only ventured out to feed the birds at dawn this morning and thaw their water bowls out through the day.
Good news is it's going to warm up overnight and rain!
Pat
|
Is this assault? - No FM2R
