Student jailed for slapping woman with mantool whilst she sleeps

Whaat! ... I really find it hard to believe the British justice system has gone from being among the best to this in just a few short decades. Honestly, if they had a legally stronger word than inept I would use it right now.

 

Media messaging, Whatsapp, BBM....the world has moved on zz. There are loads of ways to share a video without posting it online. And once it's out there it's unstoppable. Anyway, reading between the lines he sort of was.

After he pleaded guilty the Judge had to consider the sentencing guidelines for s3 sexual assault. These are the politicians sop to the public to give consistency and deprive judges of professional judgement. If you consider it an offence of "additional degredation/humiliation" (which being unconscious while a housemate slaps his **** in your face surely fulfils) and given an offence of higher (A) culpability might include "recording of offence" he was looking a starting point of 2 years in custody! Play around the the aggravating/mitigating factors as you wish, which is nigh on impossible without more facts, and add in a 50% reduction for early guilty plea and 9 months is about right according to the rules laid down by the Sentencing Council who in turn exist because of Parliament.​

Page 19 if you don't believe me:

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary....fences_Definitive_Guideline_content_(web).pdf

Hopefully at some point the Court of Appeal will publish their judgement and we can find out what they were told.

 

I don't doubt any of this ... apart from useless politicians the fault lies squarely on CPS' shoulders. Who in God's name employs idiots that cannot differentiate misdemeanors from serious crime?

However as I understand it a judge is quite within his rights to question the charges if he finds them inappropriate, it really make one wonder just what is going on behind masonic closed doors.

 

Cautions for sexual offences where the victim is supportive of prosecution and sufficient evidence exists to prosecute the offence are rarer than rocking horse muck these days. It's not the done thing. Can you imagine the headlines if they'd have dropped it?

 

Got to agree to differ on this one then. Just because you and others would have laughed it off doesn't require her to. She just told the truth. And just because you wouldn't have had a sexual motive for a similar prank, doesn't mean this guy didn't. What is perhaps unfortunate, as UEA has suggested, is that the sentencing guidelines are too tightly drawn to give judges leeway to be able to use a bit more personal judgement and common sense. It would be a pity if, as far as sentencing is concerned, judges became little more than rubber stamps.

 

Of course I believe you, it was me who first mentioned the sentencing parameters in my post #88. I repeat, it is my view that it was not serious enough to have gone to court in the first place.

I don't think I am being so different from the general public, who are generally not concerned with the PC aspects and probably have a greater tolerance for people's drunken mistakes than you and others on here.

Late last night at a Chinese Restaurant, we discussed this around a large table, albeit we were probably a bit a worse for wear.

There were 15 of us, inc 7 women. No one thought it was worth a custodial sentence, only 2 thought it should have gone to court ( one bloke, one girl). 4 or 5 women thought that it was a ridiculous offence to get upset about, etc, etc, commenting words to the effect of, "if I'd got hold of him, I would have nailed it to the table".etc, etc. but the thought of seeing it go to court and give evidence against a remorseful young man, horrified them.

There was very little support for your P of V, amongst our very small group of people, who I would describe as decent pretty bunch of well rounded people.

It seems that some on this earth have little tolerance for others when they make mistakes.

edit, if this guy had had previous for something similar, I probably would have had a different view.

 

...and that is why it was taken as far as it was. Because it certainly wasn't based on common sense.

 

It is patently clear that the sexual side of it was only coincidental ... his intentions were at worst to cause embarrassment. Shouldn't you actually prove a sexual motive before charging with it??

 

Did you raise the topic at the restaurant zz? I only ask because if you've already decided your view then it's likely your recounting of the facts, already a form of chinese whispers thanks to the way the media simplify everything, was slanted towards your view. Human nature.

For example, you say he's a "remorseful young man". For someone who used to be a copper I'm amazed you fall for that old bull, peddled by sharp suited barristers every single time sentencing comes around. I bet you any amount you like the 'grounded by his parents, working for his dad and returned home' thing came about at the suggestion of his defence team rather than him. It's all spin. All that counts is what he did and said in that video while doing what he was doing and the impact it had on his victim. I could care less how sorry he feels for the embarrassment he has brought on his family and for the loss of his own reputation.

Amazing. You've not seen the video. You don't know what he said in it. You don't know the nature of his prior relationship with the victim and what he said to her when she found out. But that's your opinion. How can you even begin to have decided that in your mind godfather?

 

It isn't patently clear at all. As far as I'm concerned, apart from using it to empty the residual matter from the two pints of Deuchar's I've consumed so far watching Man U. v Chelsea, my ****'s always been a bit of sexual kit. And it wouldn't have to be aroused to indulge in a bit of sexual humiliation of an unconsenting and sleeping female. But hey, that's not my bag ... (or my teabag) ...

 

It's teabagging - kids do this kind of thing all the time, usually to their drunken mates. So what that this time it's a girl who happened to fall asleep and anyway aren't they supposed to be equal? How fortunate she's not black or no doubt racism would've been included in the charges. .... as I said before I.N.E.P.T. inept!

 

I'll conduct a similar experiment on Wednesday night. And similar numbers and similar gender mix. Common ground, all participants on rugby tours (including the females). I suspect at least a subtly different result. But I won't pre-judge it.

 

He pleaded guilty.

That aside, out of interest where does your opinion on that particular act start to move towards the law intervening? Let's say for the sake of argument he's a weird guy who has been asking out this girl for ages. She keeps saying no because she's well out of his league. He knows she has a boyfriend but nonetheless he does what it's reported he did when he sees the opportunity. Still alright? Still a 'boys will be boys' moment?

 

Then he's a kid that got bad advised and don't tell me that doesn't still happen.

 

Of course it does. But if the case was as arguable as you're saying then why not opt for jury trial? If you're right it would be perfect for it. Hell, zztop's court of public opinion would surely have acquitted him?

 

You are talking about two drunken lads pulling a prank and filming it compared to the lone act of a stalker, it's so unlikely I can't even see how you got there ... Have you been watching Minority Report again? You know you shouldn't.

 

I live in Nottingham where the case was committed and heard, it has been a pretty big story up here. I didn't need to raise the issue, someone else did. As you think I am just mis-reporting what was said to suit my view, even though you were miles away and didn't hear it, then there is no point in discussing it any further.

 

Teabagging probably.

Well it really wasn't that much of a leap. All I did was fill in a few of the blanks. Such as - who is he? How does he know her? How did they meet? Did they have a prior relationship? What actually happened in the video? What did he say during it? How did she find out about it? What did he say to her when she did? You've breezed over all of these things, which are all unknown, and decided that because kids are doing it all the time it must have been an innocent mistake. A misdemeanour. Drunken tomfoolery.

 

What a ridiculously sensitive response to a pretty tame first point in the quote from me. But fair enough. It's always nice to see someone standing up for the convicted criminals...not enough of it around if you ask me.

 

I am not being sensitive, but I cannot see the point in discussing things if you think I am not telling the truth, that's all. I cant prove it, as I am on a forum, so what is the point?

When people tell me things that happen to them, I start off accepting what they say, unless something is said to the contary. I prefer to have discussions with people who have that opinion of me.

 

Ok. Now I'm just confused. I never suggested you had lied. Or at least never intended to. What's to prove? I asked if you raised the topic, you've told me you didn't and someone else did, that's it. My question answered. My subsequent point about how when people raise a topic for discussion they do so because they have a strong opinion and it's human nature to slant the facts in their direction was rendered redundant because you didn't raise it. Someone else did at the Chinese restaurant.

 

Don't you think those blanks would've been filled in by now if it was anything but? ... I certainly do.

 

For heavens sake. I told you what was said, and that there was very little support form your point of view. You suggested that I have probably skewed it in my favour, as if I am incapable of reporting it honestly.

If you told me that your father was the judge and that he explained that the offence was more serious than reported because of blah, blah, then I would have just accepted what you said. I wouldn't have said that you are probably skewing the facts to suit your argument. I am more trusting than that. Often to my cost.

 

My father is unlikely to have been the judge as the judge was a woman. Stick that in your honest reporting pipe and smoke it.

 

The Appeal Court Judge was Alistair McCreath, who is definitely a man. Or do you need proof of that as well?

So stick that in your pedantic, cynical pipe and smoke that!

 

:]] There were three appeal court judges as per a normal sentence appeal. You said 'the judge'. I therefore took it to mean the original trial judge. Maybe you're skewing things in your direction again?

Anyway, when the topic of discussion becomes who said what earlier in the topic it's probably time to give it rest. If only for the sake of others. I'll pop back up on this thread if/when I can find the judgement of the appeal court.

 

So the original judge was female ... I'd be appealling on those grounds alone.

 

I told you that I would conduct a similar survey at a meal I was at on Wednesday night. I did. There were 14 present, 5 males and 9 females - the sort of ratio I can handle. All present are members, or associate members, of a rugby club in Edinburgh who follow Scotland to Dublin, Paris and Rome. Cardiff, and especially London are, for some reason, less popular! A typical tour might involve a travelling party of 60, half of whom would be younger single males with an 'anything can happen in the next half hour' mentality and the other half older and mostly couples. Lots of drinking is the order of the day for both groups but the females don't really get involved in the wilder excesses. Most of the 60 are 'of the left' and all the 14 on Wednesday night were, some rabidly so and some more considered. Not that I think that's relevant.

So I set the scene, said what was known and what wasn't doing my level best not to 'fish' for any particular 'verdict'. I had no wish to seek one. As usual in similar circumstances, the nine females took to discussing the issue with gusto while the five blokes mentally 'retired' to discuss the food, wine and various sporting fixtures until the women were ready to deliver their 'verdict'. The average age of the company was about 55. My findings were these:

- none of the women would have gone to the police of their own volition if the culprit(s) were part of the tour party, well known to the victim and without any 'previous'

- if another party had gone to the police (as in this case) and the victim was asked to tell the truth then they would have done so but played it down and sought clemency for the culprit(s)

- the content of the video, both visual and aural, would be an important consideration in how magnanimous they would be prepared to be but, as that was an unknown, we didn't take it any further

- very importantly, the women considered that if the video remained 'in house' and could be destroyed before it 'escaped' into the wider online community then there would be no real harm done and a slap on the wrists would suffice to satisfy them

- if the video had 'escaped' though then they would all have been extremely pissed off and felt violated even though they did know the culprit(s) although they still wouldn't have pressed for a court appearance

- if they didn't know the culprits, i.e. they weren't part of the tour, then all bets would be off

- if they didn't know the culprit(s), the content of the video did exhibit sexual humiliation of them and had been allowed to 'escape' then they would be quite prepared to go for the jugular. Obviously, there would be degrees of severity of video (the unknown). However, none of the women thought that a custodial sentence would have been the appropriate way to deal with the offence and did think that the law should be more flexible and not have such sharply defined sentencing guidelines

- all the women thought the guy who filmed and distributed the video should be answerable too

- the only area of real disagreement was that two of the women would have kept their heads down under any circumstances, not to protect the culprit(s), but to protect themselves

 

For whats its worth you can have my tuppenth worth , when rapists , child abusers walk free ,when the political elite are covering up this child abuse on an industrial scale.
this offence although the lads were guilty of being stupid is no way a jail sentence. The jails are full and were filling them with the wrong folk or so it seems to me .
Really cant wait for UK to rediscover common sense and leave all this hateful and damaging PC ****e behind .

 

this is the very definition of PC GONE MAD!!!!!

 

it is ridiculous though. he should take his case to the court of appeal or something

 

Thanks. If I get the gist, it seems to fit in with what I said then, that sharing the video was probably worse than the actual offence.

 

.

Yes. Pretty much. And I was going to finish with 'so not a whole lot different from what you found then' but fell asleep instead.

If there was a distinction between our findings it was this:

- my group of women (I should be so lucky - sounds like a harem) drew their final bottom line as 'no custodial sentence' rather than avoiding the case going to court at all costs. While they regretted the probable inevitability of a custodial sentence being the result if it did, that was down to sentencing guidelines, for which they weren't responsible, being too tightly drawn. They felt potentially uneasy about becoming part of a manipulative process to keep the case away from court to avoid that outcome if that required something more than being honest, magnanimous and forgiving. Them refusing to speak to the police for example. However, they'd probably, somewhat reluctantly, do whatever it took in practise to avoid seeing one of their 'mates' behind bars. They'd also wish to avoid all the inevitable, wider, negative consequences for the rugby club if that were to happen. Neither would they want to be seen for evermore as 'her wot put ... ... in the jail'. If that did happen it would mean the end of rugby tours for them too. The loss of something they enjoyed.

Yes though, it was the production and distribution of the video that most bothered them personally. And why would it be produced if it wasn't intended for distribution?

How they did think the case should be dealt with if it did get to court depended entirely on the content of the video. It could be, well this is obviously a pissed bloke, having a laugh and behaving badly - slap on the wrists time - to, well is that what you really think about women then? Let's start a process to find out and address it. That's what I had anticipated.

Personally, I'd rather be sticking foil envelopes on seats in the Rookery but I'm stuck here in sunny Scotland.

 

The sentence reflects a right wing obsession with sex crime and harsh punishment rather than a progressive one. Progressives are always accused of having too much consideration for the perpetrators. But don't let that stop you fitting the facts to your prejudices.

 

Arry, I thought this was quite a compelling example until a similar story turned up on Tom Martin's (A campaigner against 'discrimination' by women against men) Twitter. Are we to believe this is a common occurrence?