UK teen convicted of sex crime for touching classmate on arm

[Arkhane]

The court failed to be neutral, in a way, they treated him as worthless and did not consider anything other than yes, he is thinking of sexually assaulting her because he touched her arm. She said so after all.

Maybe you'd prefer if Britain was like Saudi Arabia in that a woman requires 5 unrelated witnesses to confirm any accusation she makes.

No, I prefer innocent until proven guilty, something that didn't happen in this particular case. Our society after all is biased to protect women and children. If someone I know claim she was raped, I unconsciously and without thinking jump to her defense even if I don't have any details or proof yet. Nothing bad with that but if the truth comes out that she lied or that there's barely any proof at all, I don't see why I shouldn't have some doubts and question her.

[Arkhane]

No they didn't. The court clearly stated that "there was no other reason to touch her arm other than to sexually assault her." If it were neutral, it would be "we'll he seemed socially inept and it's possible that he might also be trying to get her attention through contact."

Okay, so clarify it for me, is she claiming that he was about to touch her breast or did she THINK that he was about to touch her breast. Thinking what someone might do vs what they're actually trying to do is very crucial here.

You're not describing "neutrality" you're describing coming to a different conclusion.

She is claiming that he DID attempt to touch her breast but that she jumped away from him so he only touched her arm

Describing another different conclusion IS a form of neutrality. Only having ONE conclusion ISN'T

Now I keep hearing a different version. Originally she stated "she thinks he was about to touch her breasts." Now it's a claim of full on assault.

[Des-Bal]

Maybe you'd prefer if Britain was like Saudi Arabia in that a woman requires 5 unrelated witnesses to confirm any accusation she makes.

Is there any way I could convince you to stand on the other side of this argument or maybe just sit this one out? You're making this harder for those of us actually participating in the discussion. Your duties wouldn't be neglected, we could all still pretend someone was called sexist or someone tried a cookie cutter parody of an argument nobody made once a page.

[Des-Bal]

Describing another different conclusion IS a form of neutrality. Only having ONE conclusion ISN'T

Now I keep hearing a different version. Originally she stated "she thinks he was about to touch her breasts." Now it's a claim of full on assault.

No, that's just not what that word means.

She said he reached out to touch her, she jumped away, and his hand touched her arm.

When she said "I think it would have been on my breast had I not moved." In context she was very clearly saying he attempted to touch her breast not that if she stood there for five more minutes he might have considered doing it. She further clarified she had no doubts this is what he was attempting to do. The defense attorney seized on this phrasing, it didn't distract the court but it seems to be playing pretty on the internet.

Also yes it's an assault. You can't just touch people, it is totally a crime to do that. It's battery but in england apparently simple assault is battery which isn't stupid or confusing. Regardless, his testimony is an admission of assault the only question is if it was sexual and the sentences are exactly the same with the exception of the possibility of him being registered as a sex offender.

[Visionary Union]

The very fact that people here are laying the burden of proof of innocence about the defendant is very alarming. Modern justice systems are bases on innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty, which definitely didn't happen in this case. Wonder why..

[Vassenor]

The very fact that people here are laying the burden of proof of innocence about the defendant is very alarming. Modern justice systems are bases on innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty, which definitely didn't happen in this case. Wonder why..

If it didn't happen, how was he convicted?

[Des-Bal]

The very fact that people here are laying the burden of proof of innocence about the defendant is very alarming. Modern justice systems are bases on innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty, which definitely didn't happen in this case. Wonder why..

It's very alarming but that's happening in this thread not in this case. The circumstances strongly suggest a sexual motive, that established the issue is ascertaining whether any reasonable doubt exists. I do not see it as reasonably possible that this boy was too shy to talk to a girl but not too shy to suddenly touch her on the street or to do it again after she ran into the street to get away from him the first time.

If it didn't happen, how was he convicted?

What, in your mind, is the purpose of these weird one sentence questions and assertions? It's pretty apparent that the people arguing the conviction was incorrect disagree with it to say "if he didn't deserve to be convicted then why was he convicted" is genuinely ridiculous.

[Galloism]

The very fact that people here are laying the burden of proof of innocence about the defendant is very alarming. Modern justice systems are bases on innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt guilty, which definitely didn't happen in this case. Wonder why..

It's very alarming but that's happening in this thread not in this case. The circumstances strongly suggest a sexual motive, that established the issue is ascertaining whether any reasonable doubt exists. I do not see it as reasonably possible that this boy was too shy to talk to a girl but not too shy to suddenly touch her on the street or to do it again after she ran into the street to get away from him the first time.

I’m still failing to see the sexual motive of arm or waist. Assault, absolutely, but the circumstances described seem to be more “asshole trolling via assault by touching” than sexual assault.

“I’m going to touch you for 3-5 seconds, ooh baby” is just a weird read on the events described.

If it didn't happen, how was he convicted?

What, in your mind, is the purpose of these weird one sentence questions and assertions? It's pretty apparent that the people arguing the conviction was incorrect disagree with it to say "if he didn't deserve to be convicted then why was he convicted" is genuinely ridiculous.

Remember, all those black men in the US south convicted of sexual assault with no evidence to speak of all the way up through the 70s were duly convicted. If it didn’t happen, how were they convicted?

[Gravlen]

And based on the evidence provided to it the court decided that it was in this specific case.

You're appealing to the verdict given.

That isn't a wrong thing to do. The court has heard all the evidence - something we haven't - including having heard the testimony of both the people directly involved - something we haven't. The court is much better suited to arrive at a conclusion than us. That includes determining if he had sexual intent when touching her.

That's no different from saying "we'll based on evidence, the court has decided she wasn't actually raped."

While that would be a weird thing for a court to say in most cases... what exactly is your example supposed to show? Are you trying to say that if a court aquitts someone of rape, we shouldn't believe them?

And believe me, there had been cases where the court has allowed an obvious rapist to walk away based on mere technicality. Still doesn't make those courts right. This matter is simply in reverse.

You call it "technicality", I call it "respecting the rule of law and due process".

[Gravlen]

The court failed to be neutral because they considered both sides and came to the conclusion you don't like, you mean.

And you're still acting like it was just the arm.

No they didn't. The court clearly stated that "there was no other reason to touch her arm other than to sexually assault her." If it were neutral, it would be "we'll he seemed socially inept and it's possible that he might also be trying to get her attention through contact."

Not if what they saw in court didn't convince then that he actually was socially inept and was only trying to get attention through contact.

An as has been pointed out, that's not "neutrality", that's simply coming to a different conclusion not based on evidence but what you would feel better about.

[Gormwood]

Maybe you'd prefer if Britain was like Saudi Arabia in that a woman requires 5 unrelated witnesses to confirm any accusation she makes.

No, I prefer innocent until proven guilty, something that didn't happen in this particular case. Our society after all is biased to protect women and children. If someone I know claim she was raped, I unconsciously and without thinking jump to her defense even if I don't have any details or proof yet. Nothing bad with that but if the truth comes out that she lied or that there's barely any proof at all, I don't see why I shouldn't have some doubts and question her.

So you have proof the woman in this case lied about sexual harassment before. Do share with us.

[Des-Bal]

I’m still failing to see the sexual motive of arm or waist. Assault, absolutely, but the circumstances described seem to be more “asshole trolling via assault by touching” than sexual assault.

“I’m going to touch you for 3-5 seconds, ooh baby” is just a weird read on the events described.

A sexual motive does not require a body part traditionally associated with sex to be touched, that said, the allegation was that he attempted to touch her breast and waist. Going with your perspective if this intimate contact was intended to cause distress what is the source of that stress except being sexually uncomfortable.

If he poked her I'd see it your way but we're talking about random prolonged touching. I think it's absolutely a sex crime and it's absolutely worth looking out for having him on the registry is an ideal outcome.

[Galloism]

I’m still failing to see the sexual motive of arm or waist. Assault, absolutely, but the circumstances described seem to be more “asshole trolling via assault by touching” than sexual assault.

“I’m going to touch you for 3-5 seconds, ooh baby” is just a weird read on the events described.

A sexual motive does not require a body part traditionally associated with sex to be touched, that said, the allegation was that he attempted to touch her breast and waist. Going with your perspective if this intimate contact was intended to cause distress what is the source of that stress except being sexually uncomfortable.

If he poked her I'd see it your way but we're talking about random prolonged touching. I think it's absolutely a sex crime and it's absolutely worth looking out for having him on the registry is an ideal outcome.

Um, uncomfortable in general?

See, I think this is read as sexual as we as a society have a reflexive nature to regard all actions by men involving women as sexual, because we view male sexuality as both dangerous and ubiquitous.

And, as is usual, I tried reversing the genders to see if I reflexively feel the same way.

So when I read it this way:

"I was just set on getting home and [reviewing] for my mock exams, but as I was coming over the bridge I saw her facing a hedge and I thought it was really weird. She wasn't doing anything. She was just facing the hedge, staring at it.

"As I walked towards her, I was watching her and she suddenly swung round so she was facing me.

"I remember it happening fast. As soon as she moved, I moved, and I said: 'stop' and she touched me on my arm. I sort of jolted out of the way and I went into the road to avoid her and he very quickly walked away…

"I forgot about it for a while because I had my exams. I just thought it was weird behavior."

....

The accuser reported the incident to the police. In a second incident, the young man was walking to school when Griffiths walked in front of him and touched his side. "It was quite a while—three to five seconds," he said. "She smirked at me, she didn't stop, she just touched me and walked off and I broke down crying in the street—it was quite traumatic."

And when I read it that way, I have a really hard time seeing this as a sexual thing, just a weird asshole thing.

[Ostroeuropa]

I’m still failing to see the sexual motive of arm or waist. Assault, absolutely, but the circumstances described seem to be more “asshole trolling via assault by touching” than sexual assault.

“I’m going to touch you for 3-5 seconds, ooh baby” is just a weird read on the events described.

A sexual motive does not require a body part traditionally associated with sex to be touched, that said, the allegation was that he attempted to touch her breast and waist. Going with your perspective if this intimate contact was intended to cause distress what is the source of that stress except being sexually uncomfortable.

If he poked her I'd see it your way but we're talking about random prolonged touching. I think it's absolutely a sex crime and it's absolutely worth looking out for having him on the registry is an ideal outcome.

Ascribing sexual motives to men for doing things when alternatives exist is a form of misandry dude. Suppose this were a woman doing it to a man. You shouldn't take the assumption that it's sexual, especially when multiple alternative explanations exist.

The one he offered, and the one Gallo alluded to (He's trolling her in a "Stop touching yourself" kind of way).

[Des-Bal]

Um, uncomfortable in general?

See, I think this is read as sexual as we as a society have a reflexive nature to regard all actions by men involving women as sexual, because we view male sexuality as both dangerous and ubiquitous.

And, as is usual, I tried reversing the genders to see if I reflexively feel the same way.

So when I read it this way:


And when I read it that way, I have a really hard time seeing this as a sexual thing, just a weird asshole thing.

If he poked her I'd see it that way. You shove, poke, or flick to make someone generally uncomfortable if we take your position as gospel the manner of touching seems geared to generate sexual discomfort. I agree that we view male and female behavior differently but switching the genders doesn't change my opinion. If a woman on the street suddenly started touching me then without circumstances evidencing a different conclusion I'd assume it was a sex thing.

Ascribing sexual motives to men for doing things when alternatives exist is a form of misandry dude. Suppose this were a woman doing it to a man. You shouldn't take the assumption that it's sexual, especially when multiple alternative explanations exist.

The one he offered, and the one Gallo alluded to (He's trolling her in a "Stop touching yourself" kind of way).

None of the circumstances elevate those alternatives to reasonable.

[Galloism]

Um, uncomfortable in general?

See, I think this is read as sexual as we as a society have a reflexive nature to regard all actions by men involving women as sexual, because we view male sexuality as both dangerous and ubiquitous.

And, as is usual, I tried reversing the genders to see if I reflexively feel the same way.

So when I read it this way:


And when I read it that way, I have a really hard time seeing this as a sexual thing, just a weird asshole thing.

If he poked her I'd see it that way. You shove, poke, or flick to make someone generally uncomfortable if we take your position as gospel the manner of touching seems geared to generate sexual discomfort. I agree that we view male and female behavior differently but switching the genders doesn't change my opinion. If a woman on the street suddenly started touching me then without circumstances evidencing a different conclusion I'd assume it was a sex thing.

How about if it was two boys?

Or two girls?

[Des-Bal]

How about if it was two boys?

Or two girls?

Absolutely. Touching someone on the arm to annoy or distract them was actually a thing the guys at my High School did to each other. It was decisively sexual.

I assumed your example was two girls.

[Galloism]

How about if it was two boys?

Or two girls?

Absolutely. Touching someone on the arm to annoy or distract them was actually a thing the kids at my High School did to each other. It was decisively sexual.

I assumed your example was two girls.

Oh I was reading it as a girl perp and a boy vic.

Well, I don't see the sexuality in it at all, at least not based on the information provided.

Gravlen has a point that the court may have more information though than what we can see.

[Gravlen]

Absolutely. Touching someone on the arm to annoy or distract them was actually a thing the kids at my High School did to each other. It was decisively sexual.

I assumed your example was two girls.

Oh I was reading it as a girl perp and a boy vic.

Well, I don't see the sexuality in it at all, at least not based on the information provided.

Gravlen has a point that the court may have more information though than what we can see.

Yeah, like the text messages to a family member which he tried to hide by deleting them. Could be relevant.

[Arthenius]

On the one side we have the guys search history and mental health issues. (I.E, actual evidence.).
On the other we have the girls paranoia in the context of a misandrist society winding her up into thinking every male is out to rape her.

The courts went with the latter, despite the evidence of his search history showing that it was not a sexual, but a social act. (I.E, he was trying to make friends.). That's the result of the constant feminist harassment of our society and its institutions and their gaslighting of the public by saying if they don't get their anti-male ways catered to, somehow we're anti-woman.

The feminism sourced misandry here intersects with ableism, as does much of the feminist hysteria, paranoia, and assuming the worst over men interacting with women socially, which is obviously going to disproportionately impact the young and the disabled, as well as those from different cultures. As usual, the bigotry targets the most marginalized already.

Even though I have some kind of high-functioning autism and I still might be a little awkward sometimes, I'm not a social progressive. I don't think today's "progressives" truly care about the marginalized and persecuted, they do a lot of persecution themselves. I also don't want to be coddled because I may have some social issues and awkwardness.

[Des-Bal]

Even though I have some kind of high-functioning autism and I still might be a little awkward sometimes, I'm not a social progressive. I don't think today's "progressives" truly care about the marginalized and persecuted, they do a lot of persecution themselves. I also don't want to be coddled because I may have some social issues and awkwardness.

if someone's social issues make it unreasonable to expect that they get through their day without assaulting people then they don't need coddling they need to be separated from society.

[Arthenius]

Even though I have some kind of high-functioning autism and I still might be a little awkward sometimes, I'm not a social progressive. I don't think today's "progressives" truly care about the marginalized and persecuted, they do a lot of persecution themselves. I also don't want to be coddled because I may have some social issues and awkwardness.

if someone's social issues make it unreasonable to expect that they get through their day without assaulting people then they don't need coddling they need to be separated from society.

This isn't true about mine, though. I do not go with my day assaulting anyone at all.

[Des-Bal]

This isn't true about mine, though. I do not go with my day assaulting anyone at all.

Cool then you really don't have anything to worry about. This kid committed assault. Circumstances evidence that it was sexual assault.

If he was so legitimately socially awkward that he doesn't understand you can't do that then it means society has to be protected from him not that he should get a pass.

[Arthenius]

This isn't true about mine, though. I do not go with my day assaulting anyone at all.

Cool then you really don't have anything to worry about. This kid committed assault. Circumstances evidence that it was sexual assault.

If he was so legitimately socially awkward that he doesn't understand you can't do that then it means society has to be protected from him not that he should get a pass.

First, I thought the story said he didn't intend it and thought he was just trying to talk and make a friend. I thought he just touched her arm. I admit I didn't read the entire thing itself. Did it say whether or not he introduced himself or started conversation verbally at first?

There are some women that exist who have an agenda to blame males for any wrong, including falsely accusing them of something they didn't even do. There are a lot of times the assault was real, but I'm only talking about false accusations with no evidence provided, especially if it was a non-personality figure like just some regular Joe.

[Des-Bal]

First, I thought the story said he didn't intend it and thought he was just trying to talk and make a friend. I thought he just touched her arm. I admit I didn't read the entire thing itself. Did it say whether or not he introduced himself or started conversation verbally at first?

There are some women that exist who have an agenda to blame males for any wrong, including falsely accusing them of something they didn't even do. There are a lot of times the assault was real, but I'm only talking about false accusations with no evidence provided, especially if it was a non-personality figure like just some regular Joe.

The story is a nakedly biased misrepresentation. He stood silently on a bridge on her path from school, when she approached him he turned to face her and reached out to touch her. She jumped away from him into the street saying "no." He touched her arm but she said that she had no doubt that he was attempting to touch her breast and only the fact that she jumped away from him prevented him from doing so. He said nothing before or after touching her.

One month later as she was on her way to school he stood in the path, moved to block her from passing put his hand on her waist, smiled while making eye contact, held it there for several seconds, and then walked away. He said nothing before or after touching her.

There are terrible people, some of them make false accusations. Keep this in mind but if you allow it to erode your skepticism you have crippled yourself.