RTÉ journo given 15months for sexually assaulting woman as she slept

What he admitted to doing was sexual assault. I think what you are suggesting is he didn't think it was sexual assault.

Ignorance is not a defence.

'I thought the legal age of consent was 14', nope you are going to trial.

Well, at least you are grasping clearly where I am coming from

To my knowledge, he did not admit to sexually assaulting the woman. He said what he did. This resulted in a sexual assault charge being brought against him. Pleading not guilty is what I would have done. It's clear that the chap did not at all think what he did was worthy of a sexual assault charge, conviction and jail sentence. So why on earth plead guilty....

Not ok to grope sleeping men or women, or pinch peoples bottoms. Nobody has said otherwise

Now, does every case here of this happening need to go to court and the man/woman jailed for it? This is the common sense that is sorely missing.

So, you mentioned bottom pinching: Is anyone really suggesting that a man who admits to pinching a bottom, resulting in a charge of sexual assault against him, should admit/agree to sexual assault and plead guilty to the charge?

I'll ask you again, do you not think that lying on top of a sleeping woman and groping her breasts is sexual assault? Yes or no?

He admitted to it, didn't plead guilty but definitely when interviewed said it happened how she said.

Of course it is but nobody's denying that fact and didn't he only admit to sexual assault after the verdict?

I am unaware that he ever officially admitted to sexual assault. He said he accepted the jury's verdict. But people say that; doesn't mean they agree with the charge levied against them. It can be said due to showing respect for the justice system and its operations.

If someone commits sexual assault, describes that sexual assault but pleads not guilty, they very likely are going to face a custodial sentence. Because they are essentially saying that they don't care what the law is, they don't care about how their actions affect the person they commit them on, no big deal nothing to see here, they don't believe what they did should be classed as an assault and that is all that matters. And that is what you are saying, too. You can't touch people sexually without their consent. The same way you can't punch, slap, kick or pull people's hair. People have a right to all aspects of their bodily integrity and that includes being touched, against their will, in a sexual way. These are crimes. If you go to court and describe committing a crime and then plead not guilty to that crime you are essentially sticking two fingers up at the law. No Judge should take kindly to that and a lesson learned in the klink is well deserved.

We all know he didn't pinch a bottom. The debate and discussion was around pleading guilty or not guilty for him on the sexual assault charge

Hence why it was brought up that patting/pinching a bottom can see you charged with the crime of sexual assault: Do you think it crazy that any man/woman would plead not guilty to the charge of sexual assault here, even if they admitted that they did pinch/pat?

What he did was much more serious than that - he put himself in a position of physical power over a sleeping woman and groped her, and somehow you and others seem to believe that constitutes a minor assault on some imagined scale you have of levels of sexual assault in your own mind.

You even said yourself his sentence was harsh for crying out loud. Look who's moving the goalposts now.