|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 15:38:59 GMT
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.
I'm afraid you've lost me. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Apr 22, 2024 16:00:15 GMT
In earlier, perhaps saner times the meaning of 'assault' was quite clear: it involved some form of physical attack or encroachment on the person of another.
Some time or another, and it's unclear when, the definition became expanded to encompass verbal 'assaults' as well. It might well be that a majority of sexual assaults are now verbal in nature rather than physical.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 16:13:35 GMT
In earlier, perhaps saner times the meaning of 'assault' was quite clear: it involved some form of physical attack or encroachment on the person of another. Some time or another, and it's unclear when, the definition became expanded to encompass verbal 'assaults' as well. It might well be that a majority of sexual assaults are now verbal in nature rather than physical. Sexual assault must involve touching. There is the possibility of an attempt charge.
This is unlike 'common assault' where putting someone in fear of violence, perhaps verbally, may constitute an assault.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Apr 22, 2024 17:01:48 GMT
That's good to know. The old standby chat-line 'If I said you had a lovely body would you hold it against me?' is still serviceable then and not a capital offence like wolf-whistling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 22, 2024 17:33:22 GMT
That's good to know. The old standby chat-line 'If I said you had a lovely body would you hold it against me?' is still serviceable then and not a capital offence like wolf-whistling. From the OP and quoted from a government website definition of sexual assault it mentions touching, but then it adds: Maybe this definition catches your chat-up line. We really have no idea from the information provided by the police unless they charge you for something you personally did. Of course this contravenes the right to a fair trial where the law must be clearly described prior to the offence. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Apr 22, 2024 18:30:21 GMT
As we should all be well aware by now, laws and offences are purposely drafted so as to be vague as possible in order that the net can be cast as wide as necessary to ensnare as many offenders as possible.
The classic example is racial 'hatred' as sanctioned by the Public Order Act and other legislation that deals with 'hate crime'. You will search in vain for a definition of the term 'hatred' anywhere within that vast body of law, transgression of which can land you a seven-year jail sentence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 22, 2024 19:22:18 GMT
That's good to know. The old standby chat-line 'If I said you had a lovely body would you hold it against me?' is still serviceable then and not a capital offence like wolf-whistling. From the OP and quoted from a government website definition of sexual assault it mentions touching, but then it adds: Maybe this definition catches your chat-up line. We really have no idea from the information provided by the police unless they charge you for something you personally did. Of course this contravenes the right to a fair trial where the law must be clearly described prior to the offence. The definition doesn't catch Dan's line. If, on the other hand, he followed someone down the road repeating it, he would probably be guilty of a public order offence.
I really am struggling to understand your difficulty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 23, 2024 10:15:03 GMT
From the OP and quoted from a government website definition of sexual assault it mentions touching, but then it adds: Maybe this definition catches your chat-up line. We really have no idea from the information provided by the police unless they charge you for something you personally did. Of course this contravenes the right to a fair trial where the law must be clearly described prior to the offence. The definition doesn't catch Dan's line. If, on the other hand, he followed someone down the road repeating it, he would probably be guilty of a public order offence.
I really am struggling to understand your difficulty.
If I said the answer was 42 you would ask how I came to that conclusion. The problem I have is not wondering what people think the law is, but what the law actually is. We don't want to make a bet with a 20 month prison sentence if we are then told the law is different somehow for ourselves. Supposing we are told your circumstances are not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 23, 2024 10:50:33 GMT
You should never touch a stranger or make sexual comments towards them.
Decent folk have always known this.
Anybody that thinks this behaviour is ok... would you be ok if it was directed towards your daughter, wife, mother?
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 23, 2024 11:09:27 GMT
You should never touch a stranger or make sexual comments towards them. Decent folk have always known this. Anybody that thinks this behaviour is ok... would you be ok if it was directed towards your daughter, wife, mother? Yes but that is like saying if you don't want to break the law don't leave the house, speak to anyone...
Making such broad statements is hopeless. What would you do if you were a young lad on the pull?
|
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 23, 2024 11:11:47 GMT
The definition doesn't catch Dan's line. If, on the other hand, he followed someone down the road repeating it, he would probably be guilty of a public order offence.
I really am struggling to understand your difficulty.
If I said the answer was 42 you would ask how I came to that conclusion. The problem I have is not wondering what people think the law is, but what the law actually is. We don't want to make a bet with a 20 month prison sentence if we are then told the law is different somehow for ourselves. Supposing we are told your circumstances are not the same. I wouldn't, of course, but you linked to the CPS site which seems clear to me. I explained the reasonableness test as it relates to 'sexual behaviour'. You gave an example of foreign customs in pursuit of mating. Clearly, mating is sexual, so I talked about consent and culture.
You said it wasn't what you were driving at. I genuinely don't understand your problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 23, 2024 11:16:08 GMT
If I said the answer was 42 you would ask how I came to that conclusion. The problem I have is not wondering what people think the law is, but what the law actually is. We don't want to make a bet with a 20 month prison sentence if we are then told the law is different somehow for ourselves. Supposing we are told your circumstances are not the same. I wouldn't, of course, but you linked to the CPS site which seems clear to me. I explained the reasonableness test as it relates to 'sexual behaviour'. You gave an example of foreign customs in pursuit of mating. Clearly, mating is sexual, so I talked about consent and culture.
You said it wasn't what you were driving at. I genuinely don't understand your problem.
You said
The police site link disagrees with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Apr 23, 2024 11:20:42 GMT
You should never touch a stranger or make sexual comments towards them. Decent folk have always known this. Anybody that thinks this behaviour is ok... would you be ok if it was directed towards your daughter, wife, mother? Yes but that is like saying if you don't want to break the law don't leave the house, speak to anyone...
Making such broad statements is hopeless. What would you do if you were a young lad on the pull?
Again, so if I bumped into your daughter on the train you would be happy for me to touch her and make sexual comments? You wouldn't want polite conversation to see if she was interested, you wouldn't want a date to arranged? lol. NO WOMEN ON A TRAIN is looking for sex you complete moron! |
|
|
|
Post by Equivocal on Apr 23, 2024 11:31:23 GMT
I wouldn't, of course, but you linked to the CPS site which seems clear to me. I explained the reasonableness test as it relates to 'sexual behaviour'. You gave an example of foreign customs in pursuit of mating. Clearly, mating is sexual, so I talked about consent and culture.
You said it wasn't what you were driving at. I genuinely don't understand your problem.
You said
The police site link disagrees with that.
If it's the bit you quoted, it says it's also an offence....
That's s.4 - Causing Sexual Activity Without Consent.
From your CPS link:-
Causing sexual activity without consent (section 4) (non penetrative) (either way – 10 years on indictment)
Causing sexual activity without consent ( penetrative) (section4(4))(indictable – max life)
Key points
The offence can be committed by words alone e.g. defendant makes his victim carry out a sexual act, such as masturbation, that only involves the victim.
This offence covers situations where, for example, a complainant is forced
to carry out a sexual act involving their own person, such as masturbation, or
to engage in sexual activity with a third party, who may be willing or not, or
to engage in sexual activity with the offender e.g. woman forces a man to penetrate her.
This section creates two separate offences, penetrative and non-penetrative.
The mode of trial and maximum sentence varies depending on whether there is penetration.
The non-penetrative offence is either way and attracts a maximum 10 year sentence on indictment
The penetrative offence is indictable only and attracts a maximum sentence of life imprisonment
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Apr 23, 2024 11:31:31 GMT
Yes but that is like saying if you don't want to break the law don't leave the house, speak to anyone...
Making such broad statements is hopeless. What would you do if you were a young lad on the pull?
Again, so if I bumped into your daughter on the train you would be happy for me to touch her and make sexual comments? You wouldn't want polite conversation to see if she was interested, you wouldn't want a date to arranged? lol. NO WOMEN ON A TRAIN is looking for sex you complete moron! I've met women in all sorts of places. Maybe you have not lived. You should have seen what it was like on the night bus at about 2:30 am on a Saturday night in Manchester as it was before we had this fascist state. I'm sure the woke today would be utterly shocked. I say we should no t be dictated to by such cretins. There were plenty of women looking for sex in the past. That's why we are here. |
|
