|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 21, 2024 14:46:15 GMT
Here is what a Daily Mail story looks like
The question is, what did he actually do and say to deserve 20 months in prison?
I can look the case up in Google and there are hundreds of reports, but each report only contains the same information reworded a million times that came from a police statement. So much for a free press. You're havin a laugh as they say.
lifted from police press release:
Reader needs an elaboration on the above and reads
One immediate misleading thing about the above is far from sexual abuse and sexualised comments being two separate things as implied, it turns out that sexualised comments is sexual abuse, so we could equivalently read that as
This passenger then left the carriage and Junior sexually assaulted the victim before continuing to make further sexually assaults.
Which reads like shit.
This is all the detail the police report gives the entire British public. not one journalist in these cases ever prints anything other than the information in the police press release. So this is telling us an orange is an orange, but we still don't know what the orange is. For this we have to go to a government website.
How very simple for an African of low IQ to understand, but no, it isn't, and the reason for this is the little link embedded in this quote for legal definition.
I'm not going to go through all of that but here is a sample. Here we are told what sexual means in relaiton to the law
Now are we any clearer what is not permitted in the UK under a 20 month penalty in the slammer? I want you to understand this when you are blind drunk and it is 1am in the morning and you are on a train home from some night out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Apr 21, 2024 15:00:27 GMT
Baron von Lotsov
Nope not really. Although under the forthcoming Starmer/Rayner/Reeves regime I believe wolf-whistling might get you a minimum of 5 years in clink.
Rishi's shambles is just the warm up act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 21, 2024 15:49:31 GMT
Which section suggests sexualised comments are equivalent to sexual abuse?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 21, 2024 15:53:50 GMT
Which section suggests sexualised comments are equivalent to sexual abuse? The classic catch all. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Apr 21, 2024 22:23:20 GMT
Being grabbed by the genitals for starters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 21, 2024 23:00:22 GMT
Being grabbed by the genitals for starters. Do you think that is what he did on this train in front of other passengers? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 22, 2024 11:35:52 GMT
Here is a cyclic definition problem.
The definition of sexual assault is that it is what a reasonable man would regard as sexual assault.
A reasonable man comes from an old common law case which said the reasonable man is the average educated man one might find on the Clapham Omnibus, which gives you an idea when this case was heard, as per the time of the London omnibuses. However this is a crucial case and is used throughout law to define what is reasonable. To give you an example, in law the state must act also as the reasonable man. It must be pointed out that in this case it was also said a reasonable man is not an expert in any subject, so the reasonable man is not for example a trained lawyer but although this limits it in one direction we obviously limit it in the other where what the reasonable man judges to be so must be based on a reasonable argument, i.e. credible, the logic does not contradict itself and so on. Remember this was first used in common law, but now it has extended over to criminal law, which is the case here.
So bearing in mind all of this, how does a reasonable man draw the line between sexual assault and non sexual assault? The ball is in his court. Remember he must come to his decision by reasonable argument. We could think more broadly and say ask how do we recognise a crime. Well in law we have a system of case law. Each case describes a set of circumstances and a judgment is made, so one can well imagine the man on the Clapham omnibus reading his copy of the Times and reading the various cases that hit the papers to see what is crime and what is not. Papers would generally describe a summary of the case. This is no longer so. Papers today only carry a rewording of the police press statement. They use the same words so you can read a hundred different accounts and that are all from one source, so however much you read you are limited to police stealth reporting as we see above. Can anyone explain how a reasonable man today can discriminate between two people innocently chatting each other up on a late night tube and when it is a crime? It is impossible. Instead of being told the defendant did actions one, two and three which amounted to sexual assault, we are simply told the defendant did sexual assault which is sexual assault, i.e. an orange is an orange. You see what the bastards have done?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 11:53:57 GMT
Can anyone explain how a reasonable man today can discriminate between two people innocently chatting each other up on a late night tube and when it is a crime? It is impossible. Instead of being told the defendant did actions one, two and three which amounted to sexual assault, we are simply told the defendant did sexual assault which is sexual assault, i.e. an orange is an orange. You see what the bastards have done? The time before, he entered a guilty plea to: Sexual communications with a child. Attempted sexual assault. Section 4 public order. Common assault. Assault on an emergency worker. Although there is inaccuracy in the opening paragraph, it gives a reasonable clue to the things one should avoid doing. link |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 22, 2024 12:50:45 GMT
Can anyone explain how a reasonable man today can discriminate between two people innocently chatting each other up on a late night tube and when it is a crime? It is impossible. Instead of being told the defendant did actions one, two and three which amounted to sexual assault, we are simply told the defendant did sexual assault which is sexual assault, i.e. an orange is an orange. You see what the bastards have done? The time before, he entered a guilty plea to: Sexual communications with a child. Attempted sexual assault. Section 4 public order. Common assault. Assault on an emergency worker. Although there is inaccuracy in the opening paragraph, it gives a reasonable clue to the things one should avoid doing. link It follows the same secretive reporting pattern as the last one.
I've condensed the crap printed in your link to the accusations made. Lets quickly run through them and see what intelligence we can garner.
Now we know the legal definition of sexual is what the reasonable man would think is sexual. We are still none-the-wiser except to note the man seems to get a lot of trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 13:09:23 GMT
Now we know the legal definition of sexual is what the reasonable man would think is sexual. We are still none-the-wiser except to note the man seems to get a lot of trouble.
I rather thought you may be struggling with the reasonable man concept and thought the article might assist. I suppose from your perspective you can always thank your lucky stars that it's not the reasonable woman. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 22, 2024 13:29:57 GMT
Now we know the legal definition of sexual is what the reasonable man would think is sexual. We are still none-the-wiser except to note the man seems to get a lot of trouble.
I rather thought you may be struggling with the reasonable man concept and thought the article might assist. I suppose from your perspective you can always thank your lucky stars that it's not the reasonable woman. Well as you know a crime has to satisfy criminal action coupled with criminal intent. We have two things which are indicated in the article as criminal actions. The first is making sexual suggestions and the second is a wider term which includes the first and is described as sexual advances. Since the law requires reason we will have to figure out with reason where the line is between a legal sexual advance and an illegal one, and we are only given one specific example of a sexual advance and that is a sexual suggestion, which is in itself a vague collective term. Without specific expert knowledge of the law we can reason that not all sexual advances are illegal by observing not everyone alive today has criminal parents. This is all we have to go on, so the reasonable man hits an information blockade. He can not possible reason the distinction from the information you provided me to help in this matter. I contend this information was likely lifted from a police press release written by a police lawyer intent on obfuscation so as to prevent the reasonable man defining sexual in the sense of criminal law of sexual assault. Without recourse to expert knowledge can you suggest a way out of this conundrum, except avoid all attempts to reproduce and become extinct, which seems reasonably stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 13:53:58 GMT
I rather thought you may be struggling with the reasonable man concept and thought the article might assist. I suppose from your perspective you can always thank your lucky stars that it's not the reasonable woman. Well as you know a crime has to satisfy criminal action coupled with criminal intent. We have two things which are indicated in the article as criminal actions. The first is making sexual suggestions and the second is a wider term which includes the first and is described as sexual advances. Since the law requires reason we will have to figure out with reason where the line is between a legal sexual advance and an illegal one, and we are only given one specific example of a sexual advance and that is a sexual suggestion, which is in itself a vague collective term. Without specific expert knowledge of the law we can reason that not all sexual advances are illegal by observing not everyone alive today has criminal parents. This is all we have to go on, so the reasonable man hits an information blockade. He can not possible reason the distinction from the information you provided me to help in this matter. I contend this information was likely lifted from a police press release written by a police lawyer intent on obfuscation so as to prevent the reasonable man defining sexual in the sense of criminal law of sexual assault. Without recourse to expert knowledge can you suggest a way out of this conundrum, except avoid all attempts to reproduce and become extinct, which seems reasonably stupid. Let me try with a couple of examples. If a man is sitting on a train and puts his hands on the breasts of the woman sitting next to him and kisses her on the lips. The reasonable man is unlikely to believe he thought she was having a heart attack and decided to start CPR. Conversely, the reasonable man may well believe the man sitting on a train who kissed the large lady sitting next to him who had just been insulted because of her weight to cheer her up. link
The reasonableness test is to test the subjective (mens) element for the accused's actions. It's the same test for consent - reasonable belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 22, 2024 14:19:19 GMT
Well as you know a crime has to satisfy criminal action coupled with criminal intent. We have two things which are indicated in the article as criminal actions. The first is making sexual suggestions and the second is a wider term which includes the first and is described as sexual advances. Since the law requires reason we will have to figure out with reason where the line is between a legal sexual advance and an illegal one, and we are only given one specific example of a sexual advance and that is a sexual suggestion, which is in itself a vague collective term. Without specific expert knowledge of the law we can reason that not all sexual advances are illegal by observing not everyone alive today has criminal parents. This is all we have to go on, so the reasonable man hits an information blockade. He can not possible reason the distinction from the information you provided me to help in this matter. I contend this information was likely lifted from a police press release written by a police lawyer intent on obfuscation so as to prevent the reasonable man defining sexual in the sense of criminal law of sexual assault. Without recourse to expert knowledge can you suggest a way out of this conundrum, except avoid all attempts to reproduce and become extinct, which seems reasonably stupid. Let me try with a couple of examples. If a man is sitting on a train and puts his hands on the breasts of the woman sitting next to him and kisses her on the lips. The reasonable man is unlikely to believe he thought she was having a heart attack and decided to start CPR. Conversely, the reasonable man may well believe the man sitting on a train who kissed the large lady sitting next to him who had just been insulted because of her weight to cheer her up. link
The reasonableness test is to test the subjective (mens) element for the accused's actions. It's the same test for consent - reasonable belief.
I grant you there are cases where reason alone can give a solid answer, as per your example. We observe here the breast is a sexual organ and there is nothing cultural about it. In Malta, supposing I'm walking along a Maltese street with my Maltese woman, then she sees someone she knows, which in her case could be half of bloody Malta (travelling by foot is a long process) then she will greet them, introduce me and I will greet them, and the way one does it in Malta is a kiss on both cheeks where it is a man and a woman, but it is also pretty common for a friend of a friend to great the children similarly. That is done completely out of politeness, and is the same as we rather prudish English shake the hands instead.
Now here is your problem for you lawyers types. The law also protects agaisnt discrimination of race. This man might be fresh out of Africa where in my limited understanding of the African mating ritual, it is a rather male dominated thing, as the male is the one who does the chatting up and the male will do that in a way we would describe as hustling the woman. The woman either goes along with it or tells the man to piss off and generally he will do, but it is expected he will give it a good go and might not piss off without repeated attempts. African woman are used to it and think this just as acceptable as we would when we call it legal. They will probably laugh and say something like you aint man enough or something to push back. So you have the problem is cultural mismatch leading to a misunderstanding of intent. The English woman might have interpreted it as attempted rape, where the African looks like in the first video in the op to just be trying it on. Maybe she was dressed sexily after being on a night out herself. He did look genuinely surprised he was committing an offence. That's all the info we have to go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 14:49:58 GMT
Let me try with a couple of examples. If a man is sitting on a train and puts his hands on the breasts of the woman sitting next to him and kisses her on the lips. The reasonable man is unlikely to believe he thought she was having a heart attack and decided to start CPR. Conversely, the reasonable man may well believe the man sitting on a train who kissed the large lady sitting next to him who had just been insulted because of her weight to cheer her up. link
The reasonableness test is to test the subjective (mens) element for the accused's actions. It's the same test for consent - reasonable belief.
I grant you there are cases where reason alone can give a solid answer, as per your example. We observe here the breast is a sexual organ and there is nothing cultural about it. In Malta, supposing I'm walking along a Maltese street with my Maltese woman, then she sees someone she knows, which in her case could be half of bloody Malta (travelling by foot is a long process) then she will greet them, introduce me and I will greet them, and the way one does it in Malta is a kiss on both cheeks where it is a man and a woman, but it is also pretty common for a friend of a friend to great the children similarly. That is done completely out of politeness, and is the same as we rather prudish English shake the hands instead.
Now here is your problem for you lawyers types. The law also protects agaisnt discrimination of race. This man might be fresh out of Africa where in my limited understanding of the African mating ritual, it is a rather male dominated thing, as the male is the one who does the chatting up and the male will do that in a way we would describe as hustling the woman. The woman either goes along with it or tells the man to piss off and generally he will do, but it is expected he will give it a good go and might not piss off without repeated attempts. African woman are used to it and think this just as acceptable as we would when we call it legal. They will probably laugh and say something like you aint man enough or something to push back. So you have the problem is cultural mismatch leading to a misunderstanding of intent. The English woman might have interpreted it as attempted rape, where the African looks like in the first video in the op to just be trying it on. Maybe she was dressed sexily after being on a night out herself. He did look genuinely surprised he was committing an offence. That's all the info we have to go on.
I can't see any problems arising from anything you say in your first paragraph.
In your second paragraph there is no question about the sexual nature of the advance. The issue is consent. Would a jury accept because of cultural differences the accused reasonably believed the complainant consented. I don't know.
Finally, we do have more to 'go on'; we know he's done it before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 22, 2024 15:01:03 GMT
I grant you there are cases where reason alone can give a solid answer, as per your example. We observe here the breast is a sexual organ and there is nothing cultural about it. In Malta, supposing I'm walking along a Maltese street with my Maltese woman, then she sees someone she knows, which in her case could be half of bloody Malta (travelling by foot is a long process) then she will greet them, introduce me and I will greet them, and the way one does it in Malta is a kiss on both cheeks where it is a man and a woman, but it is also pretty common for a friend of a friend to great the children similarly. That is done completely out of politeness, and is the same as we rather prudish English shake the hands instead.
Now here is your problem for you lawyers types. The law also protects agaisnt discrimination of race. This man might be fresh out of Africa where in my limited understanding of the African mating ritual, it is a rather male dominated thing, as the male is the one who does the chatting up and the male will do that in a way we would describe as hustling the woman. The woman either goes along with it or tells the man to piss off and generally he will do, but it is expected he will give it a good go and might not piss off without repeated attempts. African woman are used to it and think this just as acceptable as we would when we call it legal. They will probably laugh and say something like you aint man enough or something to push back. So you have the problem is cultural mismatch leading to a misunderstanding of intent. The English woman might have interpreted it as attempted rape, where the African looks like in the first video in the op to just be trying it on. Maybe she was dressed sexily after being on a night out herself. He did look genuinely surprised he was committing an offence. That's all the info we have to go on.
I can't see any problems arising from anything you say in your first paragraph.
In your second paragraph there is no question about the sexual nature of the advance. The issue is consent. Would a jury accept because of cultural differences the accused reasonably believed the complainant consented. I don't know.
Finally, we do have more to 'go on'; we know he's done it before.
No I was not suggesting that. Typically in a mating ritual the male chases the female, the female resists the advances but if the male is really attracted to the female he will make a greater effort, so despite initial rejection, the female is prone to changing her mind if suitably impressed with the male's credentials.
Now if you want a criminal conviction you will have to counter the reasonable doubt that we were not witnessing such a scenario and the female was playing the game as it is traditionally played. Females often enjoy being chased. Some expect it, and like to test the male in the process to check he is man enough. He might up the offer, like an invite to a meal or a drink perhaps.
|
|
