Could have been worse. Could have been George Michael.
Gatsby we used to call it tank slapping in the army for some reason. Always remember in Bosnia when a new corporal who was posted to us was sat minding his own business with his walkman on was sneaked up on an slapped in the face with a floppy todger his face was a picture.
He retaliated by sneaking a shoebox full of crickets into the bottom the tank slappers sleeping bag and posting a tuperware box of poo to his home address.
Ah thems were the days 😉
Sancho thats your own personally-awkward and socially-shy fantasy.
no its not made up, she and her mates filmed it on their phones and found it hilarious, i had gone to see Kings of Leon.
Its the same "crime" but i dont see it as sexual assault.
and if it was then i wouldnt think she deserved 9 months.
Chap at school with a quite frankly astonishingly enormous chopper used to sneak it into your pocket in the lunch queue. The thing was a character, these days it would have a Twitter account.
It doesn't seem like the act itself is illegal. It's *just* the fact that it was done without consent that makes it a crime.
If both parties had been awake and consenting then situation is not an issue.
Perhaps a better question to be asked of the male would be, and why did you think that would be a good idea or even funny.
and to the one with the camera, why did you capture it and keep the pictures for a year plus.
Context is everything. 9 mths seems quite harsh given some of the seemingly lenient sentences handed out for other offences but then again from the victim's view point maybe less so. I think anyone looking to differentiate between degrees of offence needs to be 'Judy Finnegan/Ken Clarke' careful!
Originally I asked if this would have been the same punishment had the victim been a man. Exactly the same crime IMHO but I don't believe he would have got nine months, we'll never know.
I think it was funny i had some cans shoved in my face without me knowing about it, still dont think its 9 months.
I thought it was called tallywhacking, not teabagging.
Teabagging is sticking your ballsack in someone's mouth, isn't it!?
Just check the sentencing guidelines, dave - I posted a link above. Far more useful than comparing sentences for different crimes which have different sentencing tariffs. This is clearly a very light sentence for this type of sexual assault - due to it being the least serious end, the lack of aggravating factors and the guilty plea - in fact it appears to be below the bottom of the range, but then I'm not a judge and presumably it is possible for them to do that in some circumstances.
Whether the sentencing guidelines are correct is another matter but taken as a whole they're not all that bad (apart from causing injury wi th a motor vehicle but that's another thread). Quite rightly sexual offences receive relatively high sentences.
So Sancho. do you think the girl should have just found it funny? I find it hard to believe that some people think that if the roles were reversed or that the victim was of the same sex that the crime is the same regardless.
Sancho, what you're describing doesn't come under the same category as breasts aren't genitalia.
I am not saying she should have found it funny, just I found it funny when I had a pair of cans thrust in my face, if tits arent genitalia, then why are people so sensitive about them being exposed, seems to me like its double standards.
what if the guy had shoved his arse in her face would that be the same sexual assault, just asking
if tits arent genitalia
We did this sort of stuff at big school, I'm pretty sure they're not. 🙄
Why do certain blokes always compare 'if a woman did it to me' which means its ok.
what if the guy had shoved his arse in her face would that be the same sexual assault, just asking
When a mummy and a daddy who love each other very much.......
Arse isn't a sex bit either - at least not in the conventional biological interpretation.
I wonder if the fact he was 21 and studying criminology counted against him, ie. he really should have understood how stupid it was and that it wasn't just 'banter' for lack of a better expression
then why are people so sensitive about them being exposed, seems to me like its double standards.
It's no an offence to go topless, walking around with you tallywackle out is (well depending where). I can't see how you think there's double standards.
by certain do you mean me hora and what is a certain bloke
and as I assume you do, I cant see where I have said I think its alright, its up to whoever it has happened to to make up their own mind to think if its funny/banter or upsetting and worth pressing charges.
and as for tits not being genitalia, my point is if they are not there are a lot of sensitivities about them.
You seriously think tits are directly comparable with a todger? Yes there are some (too many IMHO) sensitivities about breasts, but at a completely different level to other bits. Hence why it's relatively acceptable to get them out in public.
It's no an offence to go topless, walking around with you tallywackle out is (well depending where). I can't see how you think there's double standards.
You sure? I thought they had to prove intention to offend for nudity to be a crime (indecent exposure). Just nipping out in the nod to the shops isn't necessarily illegal.
They are still a secondary sexual organ and probably more sexually objectified than the female equivalent of a cock.
So personally, I don't see the difference.
Can I just check before I reply Tom - is that the opinion you hold or just what you consider the more interesting side of the argument?
ff the naked rambler has been jailed often enough just for being naked I thought.
Rule number one. Don't be a dick.
A dick, dicking about with his dick? Of course he deserves all he gets for that.
I thought he kept getting nicked cos they asked him to cover up on certain parts of his walks and he refused - ie they werent arsed about him being in the buff up on the moors?
Tom_W - you'd have to put in a hell of a lot of effort to penetratively rape someone with a pair of knockers.
Is monorailing still OK though?
But his intention wasn't to offend, just go for a walk, so clearly the issue was just him being naked. It's just that in some places they don't care.
Cock boy got off lightly . The naked rambler was getting done for section 5 and the aggravated section 5 causing harassment alarm or distress and intentionally causing H.A.D . He now has an ASBO so is getting done for the crime of breaching his asbo upping the max from 6 months to 5 years . A much more interesting and worrying case than sloting a bullying sex offender for a really short sentence.
You sure? I thought they had to prove intention to offend for nudity to be a crime (indecent exposure). Just nipping out in the nod to the shops isn't necessarily illegal.
Positive, you'll see I said depending where in my post. If you do it in front of a group of women it wouldn't been seen as acceptable as sunbathing naked in an isolated location.
https://www.crimeline.info/case/r-gough-v-west-hampshire-magistrates-court
Naked rambler latest case.
Why do some people think this is acceptable japery.
Is it is because it was a young woman, would it still be ok if someone did it to your mum.
Is it because it was done to some one drunk and asleep at a party that it's no biggie. And if some one snuck up on some woman eating her lunch in a park and whacked her around the chops with his Hampton, is that still fun and games.
Is it that the the cockskapper did not do it in order to seek some perverse sense of sexual gratification that makes it a laugh.
If your on the receiving end it's all the same a penis on your face which was videod and shared for the victims humiliation.
He deserves no sympaphy, he ****ed up and now he is paying for it.
[quote=crankboy ]Cock boy got off lightly .
crankboy, if you're prepared to comment I'd be interested in your thoughts on how the sentence is below the bottom of the 2-5 year range stated in
- I presume I have got the right offence looking at the top item on page 33. Those ranges are for people convicted after pleading not guilty, so presumably the guilty plea leads to an immediate halving of sentence, but that still leaves 1 year as the minimum.
I'm interested in an expert opinion on how these things work - feel free to keep it general.
Not going to do my day job at this time . Guide lines should be followed but read the preamble to the section sexual assault covers a wide range of conduct . the boxed bits are starting points and ranges . start at the s.p. move up and down for aggravating and mitigating factors . significant of either can move you up or down a range. Get your appropriate post trial sentence reduce by an appropriate amount for guilty plea normal 33 % for guilty plea at earliest opportunity down to 10% on day of trial . If get to under 2 years can you suspend .
Here it looks like the judge dropped a catagory I guess because minimal contact with face or the prank rather than pure sex element.
Personally the filming is a massive aggravating feature in the guidelines hence I feel he was lucky.
Not 100% sure those are the current guidelines new ones are out they generally move things up tarrif .
Thanks - lots of stuff I clearly didn't understand. This looks to be the latest guidelines
It's not how funny the todger slapper thinks it is, it's how demeaning and frightening the victim thinks it is that matters.
Good point chip. What if it was your girlfriend, wife or Mother that this happened to sancho? (Btw I know you are trolling)
Why was the girl sleeping there? She lived there? She was staying as a guest of the housemate?
As I said. Both the Judge and appeals panel know the full facts and what it'd do to a young mans career.
Finally- have you ever had the chance to take advantage of a situation but thought no? Thats wrong?
Aracer so on the uptodate guidelines he has an on the money sentence for a bog standard catagory two sentence with full credit. For what was arguably a high end catagory two offence.
A female friend met the naked rambler in some local woods last year*. It's a bit like meeting a celebrity - He's started carrying signed postcards as so many people want their photos taken with him.
I doubt cock-boy's victim wanted a signed photo. You can't really compare the two examples.
* It was freezing cold at the time, so you've got to admire his balls.
Some of you lot are seriously ****ed in the head..
I despair for the future of my children, knowing that there are grown adults out there that are genuinely appalled by childish hi-jinx, and believe that it's acceptable to condone this sort of sentencing
The level of repression is disturbing, and the unchecked self congratulatory superiority is a very dangerous side effect
Shirley, warmer weather would be suited to such admiration? 😉* It was freezing cold at the time, so you've got to admire his balls.
RM.
Good point chip. What if it was your girlfriend, wife or Mother that this happened to sancho? (Btw I know you are trolling)
What if it was your son that drunkenly cock slapped someone at the age of 19. Dont you think that 9 months would be a bit harsh considering it achieves nothing really considering his life would be ruined by going on the register. Prison is there to rehabilitate offenders, I'm not sure a cock slapper needs 9 months of rehabilitating.
Tom_W - you'd have to put in a hell of a lot of effort to penetratively rape someone with a pair of knockers.
Are you saying women can only rape men if they penetrate them?
Besides if ability to penetrate determined offensiveness, we'd all have to wear gloves. Remember the buffoonery at school where people would stick wet fingers in your ear or mouth, digital rape right there.
