Guy touches girls arm, faces 10 years for sexual assault

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I won't



The fact that you are alluding to the poster's upbringing is quite rude imo.

and descibing a woman as hysterical based on very little information isn't i suppose? the bang of incel off this thread is unreal.

Penn

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what men are meant to do to not be percieved as non threatening. Stoicly stare off into the distance?

Do like what the vast majority of men already do. Don't act like a creepy prick, staring into a hedge waiting until a girl comes near, then standing in front of her, touching her arm/waist, smiling, and walking away... twice.

It's quite easy to not do that. I avoid doing it all the time. I'm not even doing it right now.

Sittingpretty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

when in doubt describe women as hysterical. they should just accept whatever men want to do with them.



spare me the junior modding.

I never said women (she was a teenager not an adult woman) should accept whatever men want to do to them.

Thank you for belittling my perfectly polite and reasonable request.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Combined with what he did next it is very odd behaviour. I dont remember ever staring into a hedge in my life. Perhaps you find it a more fulfilling hobby than i would.



What happened to saying hello to somebody before trying to grab them? is that old-fashioned now? Whatever happened to ****ing off when asked to do and not repeating the same actions that led to said ****ing off?

Yeah, cursing someone down in an argument isn't exactly a sign of an intelligient argument :P



Sure, I stare into hedges to check out the flowers and berries. It has absolutely no relation to anything in regards to anything tbh so you can relax a little bit as it just caught my eye in the thread.



Excuse me if you disaprove of my hobby:rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I never said women (she was a teenager not an adult woman) should accept whatever men want to do to them.

Thank you for belittling my perfectly polite and reasonable request.

so tell me then, how should she have reacted? Bearing in mind she knew that there was somebody going around the area doing the same thing to other women?

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Yeah, cursing someone down in an argument isn't exactly a sign of an intelligient argument :P

I didnt curse at you.

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Sure, I stare into hedges to check out the flowers and berries. It has absolutely no relation to anything in regards to anything tbh so you can relax a little bit as it just caught my eye in the thread.



Excuse me if you disaprove of my hobby:rolleyes:

do you then turn around and grab any women passing by?

Sittingpretty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so tell me then, how should she have reacted? Bearing in mind she knew that there was somebody going around the area doing the same thing to other women?

Her reaction is her own business. It’s merely my opinion that the consequence for her reaction results in a conviction for a sexual offence for touching someone’s arm.
You think that is reasonable and the punishment is commensurate with the crime and I think it’s preposterous. Never the Twain shall meet.

ohnonotgmail

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Her reaction is her own business. It’s merely my opinion that the consequence for her reaction results in a conviction for a sexual offence for touching someone’s arm.
You think that is reasonable and the punishment is commensurate with the crime and I think it’s preposterous. Never the Twain shall meet.

are you forgetting that she told him to go away and he waited for her later on a bridge and did it again?

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

What's wrong with staring into a hedge? It's strange how it's being potrayed as a negative/scary mannerism.

I'm not entirely sure what men are meant to do to not be percieved as non threatening. Stoicly stare off into the distance?

He was waiting for her (or maybe any random person). That's pretty classic stalker behaviour. Did you seriously not see that as potential stalking behaviour?

ohnonotgmail

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was waiting for her (or maybe any random person). That's pretty classic stalker behaviour. Did you seriously not see that as potential stalking behaviour?

he was just doing a survey of the flora in the hedge. pretty popular with the young people these days apparently.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was waiting for her (or maybe any random person). That's pretty classic stalker behaviour. Did you seriously not see that as potential stalking behaviour?

Staring into a hedge is classic stalker behaviour? Imo, there is zero hard evidence of stalking behaviour and not one person has mentioned stalking besides the posters on this thread.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he was just doing a survey of the flora in the hedge. pretty popular with the young people these days apparently.

Men aren't inherently dangerous. They can look at flora and flowers in the same way women can.



And, as a sidenote, if he was on the autism spectrum, then its quite possible he was actually.

Boggles

Sittingpretty wrote: »

What an insult to actual sexual assault victims that this boy has been convicted of sexual assault for touching a girl on her arm twice.

You didn't actually read the court report did you?

Why do the Daily Mail bother with anything below the headline?

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Staring into a hedge is classic stalker behaviour? Imo, there is zero hard evidence of stalking behaviour and not one person has mentioned stalking besides the posters on this thread.

Like I said earlier, the forensic psychologist asked about this just assumed it was stalking. They see the case files and court charges for these people and the case files flesh out the details. The court charges only detail the things they were charged with. the case files have all the information.

Waiting, staring into a hedge, in an isolated area for the person to come by. Classic stalker behaviour.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Staring into a hedge is classic stalker behaviour? Imo, there is zero hard evidence of stalking behaviour and not one person has mentioned stalking besides the posters on this thread.

and when he was waiting for her on the bridge? Perhaps he has a keen interest in engineering.

Boggles

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

What's wrong with staring into a hedge?

Perfectly normal behavior.

Penn

Ultimately, if he'd stayed staring into the hedge while she walked past and that was the end of it, we could safely assume he just liked staring into the hedge.

But that's not what happened.

Sittingpretty

Boggles wrote: »

You didn't actually read the court report did you?

Why do the Daily Mail bother with anything below the headline?

I did as it happens but feel free to de legitimise my opinion because it’s not in accordance with yours.

Are you in some way trying to suggest that my information was gleaned from the DM? Thus making it completely incomplete, misinformed and illegitimate? That’s not only incorrect, it’s incredibly condescending.

Not that I should have to explain myself but I’ve never read the DM. This original article not any other.

Boggles

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I did as it happens but feel free to de legitimise my opinion because it’s not in accordance with yours.

Are you in some way trying to suggest that my information was gleaned from the DM? Thus making it completely incomplete, misinformed and illegitimate? That’s not only incorrect, it’s incredibly condescending.

Not that I should have to explain myself but I’ve never read the DM. This original article not any other.

So you haven't read anything about the case?

The delegitimization is of your own doing.

Well done.

Reviews and Books Galore

It's odd how predatory everybody is making his behaviour.



Staring into a hedge becomes stalking and passing someone on a bridge is a continuation of that. It's like saying someone getting the same tram home is stalking.



Sure, say touching a woman's waist is sexual assault, but it's absurd to add all the extra detail.



Imo, it shows that most people don't actually believe it's sexual assault, they're just adding fuel to the fire.

Sittingpretty

Boggles wrote: »

So you haven't read anything about the case?

The delegitimization is of your own doing.

Well done.

Read the first sentence of my post.

Comprehension isn’t my problem.

Apology accepted.

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

It's odd how predatory everybody is making his behaviour.



Staring into a hedge becomes stalking and passing someone on a bridge is a continuation of that. It's like saying someone getting the same tram home is stalking.



Sure, say touching a woman's waist is sexual assault, but it's absurd to add all the extra detail.



Imo, it shows that most people don't actually believe it's sexual assault, they're just adding fuel to the fire.

waiting for her multiple times is well on the way to stalking. There is no need to add the fuel to the fire. that the creep was convicted is a big enough fire for me. Your attempts to try to legitimise what he did are pathetic.

ohnonotgmail

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Read the first sentence of my post.

Comprehension isn’t my problem.

Apology accepted.

it appears it is. you have described her as hysterical. can you quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion?

Boggles

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Comprehension isn’t my problem.

I beg to differ.

Sittingpretty wrote: »

What an insult to actual sexual assault victims that this boy has been convicted of sexual assault for touching a girl on her arm twice.

Try again there hardcore?

Sittingpretty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

are you forgetting that she told him to go away and he waited for her later on a bridge and did it again?

I’m not forgetting anything. I just don’t agree with you that it’s a sexual assault.

Fortunately for your opinion the court does so really debating it is moot at this point.

Sittingpretty

Boggles wrote: »

I beg to differ.



Try again there hardcore?

Can you debate without name calling?

Differ away. I respect your opinion and your right to have it.

I can’t say the same for you and the cohort here who agree that a touch on the arm( and waist) (yes, TWICE, I’m not forgetting!) is a sexual assault.

Reviews and Books Galore

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

waiting for her multiple times is well on the way to stalking. There is no need to add the fuel to the fire. that the creep was convicted is a big enough fire for me. Your attempts to try to legitimise what he did are pathetic.

:rolleyes:

ohnonotgmail

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I speak as i find.

Sittingpretty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it appears it is. you have described her as hysterical. can you quote the parts of the article that led you to that conclusion?

I could I suppose, would it make a difference?

Can you accept that other people have a different opinion on this than yourself?

I suspect the answers to the above questions are most likely the same.

ohnonotgmail

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I could I suppose, would it make a difference?

Can you accept that other people have a different opinion on this than yourself?

I suspect the answers to the above questions are most likely the same.

Well if you could that would be great. I expect you cant.