homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Dave Lee Travis (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Dave Lee Travis
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the OP mentions Rotherham, but in a way which seems illogical to me, as if handling case A badly means that case B should be ignored or treated lightly? I just don't get that.

I think the point is that making a front-page scandal out of DLT makes people feel like Something is being done™ about sexual violence against women, but meanwhile, thousands of other vulnerable young women are still being abused and nothing is actually being done.
I thought that the OP was actually saying that the Travis prosecution is a waste of time. That's the bit I find odd; contrasting it with Rotherham doesn't really support that argument, unless someone is claiming that the Travis case is diverting resources, which could be used elsewhere.
Likewise: ISTM akin to saying that the police and CPS shouldn't be interested in investigating shoplifting cases because of the number of armed robberies which occur.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The question is, in these terms, not so much whether the police / CPS should be prosecuting shoplifting, as to whether they should be prosecuting, now, shoplifting offences from 20, 30, 40 years ago.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure that I would be in favour of a 'statute of limitations' approach to criminal prosecutions: the judicial system is pretty good on the whole IMO in weeding out evidence that is so badly deteriorated due to time-lapse that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, both at trial and also in pre-trial prosecution decisions. In the DLT case, the system worked because, despite the passage of time, the jury found the complainant's evidence sufficiently credible and compelling to convict.

The alternative - to have a civil-style limitation period - would lead to the bizarre situation that it's OK to, say, commit mass murder as long as you lie low or go on the run for x years.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It does feel like most of the celebrities I watched an TV during my childhood are now helping police with their enquiries. [Disappointed]

And back to the matter in hand. It's sad that in the 21st Century, we're still having to fight 19th Century attitudes to rape, sexual assult and the like.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
"If you can remember the 70s....you're probably guilty or a victim of some offence or another..."

[ 24. September 2014, 14:19: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It does feel like most of the celebrities I watched an TV during my childhood are now helping police with their enquiries. [Disappointed]

And back to the matter in hand. It's sad that in the 21st Century, we're still having to fight 19th Century attitudes to rape, sexual assult and the like.

Tubbs

Yes, I think there is still a deep-rooted misogyny at large in various agencies. If you couple that with a contempt for working class children, you can see why kids who were being abused, were either not listened to, or were labelled slags, who were asking for it.

I read recently the pitiful story of the actress Samantha Morton, who was abused in a residential home by her care workers. She complained, but nobody listened.

I'm not sure how these attitudes can be changed, as they probably exist quite commonly in society at large.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
"If you can remember the 70s....you're probably guilty or a victim of some offence or another..."

Prefer the orginal, "If you can remember the 70's, you weren't really there" rather than the varient, "If you can remember the 70's, you may end up helping the police with their enquiries".

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes except the original was "If you can remember the 60s you were not really there."

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yep - my quote was a parody of the 60s one

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by marsupial.:

Public solicitation is another matter. It's basically a nuisance crime.

Yes, and it is for this nuisance crime that the "persistent older girls" in the article are prosecuted.

They are also victims. Their clients, who are generally fully aware that they are underage, are all guilty of unlawful sexual activity with a child. Their pimps are guilty of arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence, and probably also of unlawful sexual activity with a child, and probably also rape.

But aren't young gangbangers victims, too? They are groomed into that way of life, just like these girls. Does the young gang recruit have more options than the young girl besotted with her "boyfriend"? Is the gangbanger any less used because nobody rapes him?

Well more broadly, the age of criminal responsibility is too low.

More importantly, how can we as a society claim that we are horrified about Rotheram & at the same time prosecute children for the very behaviour we are supposedly horrified about. It is disgusting that this is still on the statute books, it is absolutely fucking appalling.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Yes indeed, and a child who is some 5 years over the age of criminal responsibility.
And a year below the age at which she is deemed to be capable of giving consent to a sexual relationship. ANY sexual relationship.
Sure, and that makes the abuse she has suffered all the more horrible, but isn't relevant.

Teens under the age of consent can be, and are, prosecuted for rape, too. Being under the age of consent isn't some kind of magic get out of jail free card that means you aren't responsible for anything that you do if it's a bit sexual - it means precisely that you are not deemed competent to consent to sex, so anyone that has sex with you commits a crime. It does not in any way prevent you from being guilty of a sex crime.

Doublethink argues that the age of criminal responsibility is too low. I don't agree, exactly - I don't think being unable to do anything about criminal behaviour in young children is helpful. I do think that the methods for dealing with young criminals should be more oriented towards reform than they appear to be - it seems that what we have now for young criminals is a largely pointless wrist-slapping exercise. I don't know what the right thing to do is, though.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't relevant !?! WTF is wrong with you ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Isn't relevant !?! WTF is wrong with you ?

The fact that it is illegal to have sex with minors does not alter the fact that it is also illegal for minors to solicit sex for money.

Yes, of course the former is a much worse crime, but the fact that children can't consent to sex doesn't render them magically unable to be guilty of soliciting any more than it renders them magically unable to be guilty of rape.

In the normal case (and I hate being able to use words like normal in connection with child prostitution), probably the best action is not to press criminal charges against a child who is guilty of soliciting, but if the criminal charge gains you leverage to extract the child from that situation, why not use it?

[ 25. September 2014, 05:41: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lots of reasons. First, as illustrated somewhere on this thread, arresting them does little to change anything for them.
Second, labeling as criminals children who are essentially victims, affects how they will be looked on and treated. As is evidenced by current attitudes.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Lots of reasons. First, as illustrated somewhere on this thread, arresting them does little to change anything for them.
Second, labeling as criminals children who are essentially victims, affects how they will be looked on and treated. As is evidenced by current attitudes.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this. This is the same when you are dealing with children who are guilty of lots of different crimes. There must be much better ways of dealing with children involved in criminal activity than a court date in four months time, where they'll get a slap on the wrist. But making it not a crime can't be the answer.

In the original article, the explicit claim was made that children involved in prostitution are not usually charged with an offense. Which is fine.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473

 - Posted      Profile for Huia   Email Huia   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second, labeling as criminals children who are essentially victims, affects how they will be looked on and treated. As is evidenced by current attitudes.

Would such children be added to the register of sexual offenders?

(I would find that quite horriffic, but know little about UK law.)

Huia

--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.

Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes - although entry on the sex offenders register can be for a time limited period.

(I've worked with teenagers on the sex offenders register - I get all the best jobs)

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:

On the other hand, the police in Yorkshire turned a blind eye for 15 years on girls being horribly abused, threatened and raped because they were afraid of being labelled as "racists".

The "Ooo, oo nasty political correctness made us scared to say anything" crap was made up afterwards.
Really?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not making a big deal of the ethnicity of the offenders is a very different thing from not dealing with the abuse.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To add - that concerns about being seen as racist may have had an effect on mentioning the ethnicity of many of the abusers I can believe; that people were ignoring the abuse because of the ethnicity of many of the abusers I do not. It was because of the low status and perceived criminality of the victims, together with a good helping of that river in North Africa.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258

 - Posted      Profile for the famous rachel   Email the famous rachel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Coming back to DLT for a second:

I wouldn't remotely suggest that what he has done is anything other than wrong, nor would I suggest that he should not have been punished, but some of the evidence that was brought at the trial does make me question where we draw the line in defining unwanted touch as a "sexual assault".

One of the witnesses in the DLT case, brought in to show that he "has a propensity towards laying his hands in a sexual manner on young women" complained that he "he stroked down her back before resting his hand on her lower hip". To be honest, I would be astounded if you can find an adult women in the Western world who hasn't experienced unwanted touch at that sort of level, and the number of men who have administered that sort of unwanted touch would utterly overrun the prison system. DLT wasn't prosecuted for this, obviously, but it was part of the evidence against him.

Now, I'm all for sexual assault being taken seriously, but somewhere here things are bound to get ambiguous. Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like. I am now envisioning two teenagers, pausing briefly in some enthusiastic snogging for the following conversation:

Boy: "Darling, would it possibly be OK with you if I moved my hand three inches further down your back to a position where it might possibly overlap slightly with your bra strap, and thereafter might I caress your left shoulder blade slightly. This move would in no way imply that I would be allowed to make any further move at any future time".

Girl: "Go ahead darling, and whilst we are talking, might I possibly move my left hand from your knee towards your groinal area by as much as 5 cm? Again, this would not imply that you agree to any further move on my part."


Whilst I exaggerate, I know plenty of people - men and women - who in their late teens would have felt that a night out was a failure if they hadn't at least snogged a stranger, and a certain amount of experiencing other people's wandering hands was part of the enjoyment of that. I've had my bum pinched in clubs plenty of times by unidentified men, and whilst I'd personally rather it hadn't happened, I know other women who see it as only an enjoyable part of the game.

I've also, sadly in common with too many other women on this thread, experienced other more serious forms of unwanted touch in more troubling contexts and in some cases have failed to report that to my relevant superiors. Whilst in a couple of instances I certainly should have taken things further, and my employer (or in one case school) should have come down like a ton of bricks on the individual concerned, I am not at all sure that I would have wanted to see those individuals prosecuted, nor that a criminal conviction and time in jail would be commensurate with the offence against me.

Now, the seriousness of this type of offence must at least in part be dependent on the distress caused to the victim and hence I wouldn't want to comment on the specifics of the DLT case, but I feel I am increasingly illustrating the existence of a blurry region, in which boundaries are very difficult to draw.

One thing I am pretty sure about, is that if I walked into a police-station and reported a couple of incidents which happened to me at school 20 years ago and which are not that dissimilar to the actions for which DLT has been convicted, I would not expect any action to be taken. I expect with only minimum effort, I could find several other girls who had similar experiences with the teacher I am thinking of, but even if I took them all with me to the police station, I have no expectation that the teacher in question would be investigated, unless I accidentally turned up something much more severe than what happened to me.

Is the fact that the police would ignore me right? Probably not, although I am also not sure I would want the teacher in question to go to jail. What it does illustrate though is that it is as much DLT's celebrity status and the current media furore over Saville which has lead to his conviction as his actual actions. If every woman who had an experience like mine in the 70s, 80s or 90s, with a male who was not a celebrity came forward, there is no way we could even begin to investigate all these cases.

I'm left with two questions:

Where do we draw the line in defining sexual assault in cases of unwanted touch, without excessively limiting normal human interaction?

and

Is it appropriate to pursue celebrities for offences of this type committed a long time ago, when we are in no position to be pursue non-celebrities for very similar offences given how hideously common they were at the time?

I don't have answers to these questions, but I think they are worth asking, and go beyond the knee-jerk "doing wrong stuff is wrong and must be punished" which some people may be applying to the DLT case.

Best wishes,

Rachel.

--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.

Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Except unless I am confused, DLT didn't do these things in the club, he did them at work. As much as I don't to be grabbed on in a club, I agree that it is not shocking. To be felt up or stroked at work? I would be indeed shocked and outraged. And yes, if one goes back some years, it would not have been shocking for such things to happen at work either. But let us thank feminists who have gone before us rather than try to send the world back there!

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not making a big deal of the ethnicity of the offenders is a very different thing from not dealing with the abuse.

If you're trying to identify the offenders, their race is relevant.

This is what makes me bang my head against the wall, sometimes. People become so indoctrinated with the basic ideas of non-discrimination without grasping what non-discrimination actually MEANS. They end up with a message of "don't ever mention race", instead of a message of "don't mention race unless it's pertinent".

You end up with a foolish aversion to the word 'Pakistani' and a complete inability to distinguish between "the abusers were Pakistani" and "Pakistanis are abusers".

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like.

Correct. And in fact the law has had to wrestle with this exact problem. The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault. It then says, though, that we accept a certain degree of touch as part of functioning in society instead of all living in isolation.

It then ends up getting a bit vague, about how whether touch is socially acceptable or not depends a lot on context.

This works most of the time, with a lot of stuff that is clearly okay or clearly not okay, but I think it's inevitable that it gets a bit blurry near the dividing line between the two. I've only quoted a little bit of your post but I agree with lots of the things you've raised - these are real issues, and difficult ones.

[ 25. September 2014, 23:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like.

Correct. And in fact the law has had to wrestle with this exact problem. The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault. It then says, though, that we accept a certain degree of touch as part of functioning in society instead of all living in isolation.
Italics mine
That is fucked up. It is of the same reasoning as "all sex is rape".
Touch is a fundamental communication trait amongst primates. Any type of touch could be an assault, depending on context would be a better standard.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

It then ends up getting a bit vague, about how whether touch is socially acceptable or not depends a lot on context.

Context is everything. And the border between acceptable and unacceptable is messy and inconsistent and difficult.
I do not ever see it being anything else.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
orfeo

Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878

 - Posted      Profile for orfeo   Author's homepage   Email orfeo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Unless every person asks specifically about every way in which they touch every other person, sometimes people are going to be touched in ways they don't like.

Correct. And in fact the law has had to wrestle with this exact problem. The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault. It then says, though, that we accept a certain degree of touch as part of functioning in society instead of all living in isolation.
Italics mine
That is fucked up. It is of the same reasoning as "all sex is rape".
Touch is a fundamental communication trait amongst primates. Any type of touch could be an assault, depending on context would be a better standard.

But as soon as you mention context, the rest becomes semantic distinction without a practical difference (and frankly, I haven't consulted my textbooks lately to check whether the word "is" is the one used). The point is simply that there isn't some kind of degree of force or length of time required. The legal requirement is just 'touching'.

[ 26. September 2014, 03:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]

--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.

Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The common law (basis of UK system and most other English-speaking legal systems) actually says that ANY touch of another person is technically assault.

Not in Massachusetts, at least - assault entails an intent to do harm, as described in these model jury instructions, which include this citation:
quote:
Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 399 Mass. 841, 845 n.7, 507 N.E.2d 694, 696 n.7 (1987) (an assault is “any manifestation, by a person, of that person’s present intention to do another immediate bodily harm”)

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Orfeo,

I think Dave is correct that intent is the key. Even to the point that no physical contact need be made.

Back to your reply to me, there is more than a semantic difference between what I said and what you said. How a law is phrased can affect how it is prosecuted.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes. my legal education was a long time ago but IIRC (i) assault need not entail physical contact (ii) for any crime to take place (excluding the few where there is strict criminal liability: owning a sawn-off shotgun is one that comes to mind in England & Wales) there must be intent- a 'mens rea' (guilty mind) as well as an 'actus reus' (guilty act). I think- I'm not sure- that any touching might in theory be a trespass to the person, which is a tort (a civil wrong, for which e.g. damages might be claimed if harm or loss or damage could be shown to have occurred, but not a criminal offence), but I might be mistaken about that.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not making a big deal of the ethnicity of the offenders is a very different thing from not dealing with the abuse.

If you're trying to identify the offenders, their race is relevant.

This is what makes me bang my head against the wall, sometimes. People become so indoctrinated with the basic ideas of non-discrimination without grasping what non-discrimination actually MEANS. They end up with a message of "don't ever mention race", instead of a message of "don't mention race unless it's pertinent".

You end up with a foolish aversion to the word 'Pakistani' and a complete inability to distinguish between "the abusers were Pakistani" and "Pakistanis are abusers".

Yeah, I know; it's just that there's a narrative developing here of "because they were Pakistanis the politically correct council and police decided to let them get away with it because it'd be considered racist to prosecute pakistani men"

Which is bollocks.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Consent is also key to whether something is assault or not, going back to the nightclub example. Whether or not the alleged perp reasonably believed the complainant was consenting is relevant to the mens rea here also.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The fact that it is illegal to have sex with minors does not alter the fact that it is also illegal for minors to solicit sex for money.


If you can't do compassion, try logic. If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258

 - Posted      Profile for the famous rachel   Email the famous rachel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Consent is also key to whether something is assault or not, going back to the nightclub example. Whether or not the alleged perp reasonably believed the complainant was consenting is relevant to the mens rea here also.

And this is where, it seems to me, things get very difficult and blurry...

There was a thread some time ago which included some comments about teaching sex education to young adults, and moving on from "No means no" to "Only yes means yes" - i.e. someone should positively assent to sex, rather than just fail to refuse it, before you assume their consent. That's a really good idea. However, if we apply this at all levels then we get into the ridiculous situation I parodied above (Darling, would it possibly be OK with you if I moved my hand three inches further down your back...). Without that sort of approach, it is difficult to tell whether what the alleged perp believed was reasonable in many instances, and particularly for offences dating back many years, our perceptions of reasonable will have changed over the relevant time period.

Best,

Rachel.

--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.

Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

You're equivocating on two different meanings of "consent" there. Consent as in "age of consent" doesn't mean that there's some hitherto unused piece of neural hardwiring that instantly and automatically gets switched on when a person turns 16 (or 18,17,15,14,13,12... depending on where they live) which means they can suddenly agree to things they were previously incapable of agreeing to. It means that the law still considers that they have been wronged if someone has sex with them, regardless of their actual state of mind. Obviously a person who "cannot consent" in that legal sense might still make a positive choice - and, as has been pointed out above, could even make a choice to commit rape.

I basically agree that prosecuting children for prostitution is as heartless as it is stupid, but the argument that they cannot in actual fact consent to do something because the law presumes them not to have consented when it is done to them is clearly nonsense.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564

 - Posted      Profile for Leorning Cniht   Email Leorning Cniht   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If you can't do compassion, try logic. If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

You illustrate perfectly the logical failure that I am trying, badly, to point out.

Yes - a child can't consent to sex, whether or not money is involved. This makes it a serious criminal offense (statutory rape or whatever - name depends on jurisdiction) to have sex with that child, whether or not you are paying for it.

But a child, who cannot consent to sex, can still commit rape, and be found guilty of that offense. If, for example, a 15 year old boy forces his adult teacher to have sex, he is guilty of rape. The fact that he isn't competent to consent to sex doesn't get him off the hook for committing rape. (The fact that he is a juvenile will have a significant effect on his sentencing, but not on the fact of his guilt.)

Teenagers raping adults is rare, but it happens. I hope this example is sufficient to dispel the notion that someone who is not competent to consent to sex can't commit a sexual crime.

Now let's go back to the teen prostitutes. Prostitution itself isn't a crime in the UK, but soliciting is. So in the case of teenage children selling sex on street corners, the crimes committed are:

1. Unlawful sexual activity with a child, committed by the client. "I thought she was 18" is potentially available as a defense, but in the majority of cases is unlikely to be credible.

2. Sex with a prostitute who has been forced into prostitution, committed by the client. This is a strict liability offense, and as far as I can see should apply automatically in cases of child prostitution, because the child can't consent.

3. Paying for the sexual services of a child, by the client. Again, I thin this one is strict liability.

4. Kerb-crawling, by the client again.

5. Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence, committed by the child's pimp.

6. Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography, committed by the pimp.

7. Also all the standard pimp crimes, committed by the pimp - living of immoral earnings, pimping etc.

8. Soliciting, committed by the child prostitute.

This list may not be exhaustive.

Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
<stuff>

This list may not be exhaustive.

nor indeed, useful.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex it follows that it is not possible for a child to consent to have sex in return for money.

You're equivocating on two different meanings of "consent" there. Consent as in "age of consent" doesn't mean that there's some hitherto unused piece of neural hardwiring that instantly and automatically gets switched on when a person turns 16 (or 18,17,15,14,13,12... depending on where they live) which means they can suddenly agree to things they were previously incapable of agreeing to. It means that the law still considers that they have been wronged if someone has sex with them, regardless of their actual state of mind. Obviously a person who "cannot consent" in that legal sense might still make a positive choice - and, as has been pointed out above, could even make a choice to commit rape.

I basically agree that prosecuting children for prostitution is as heartless as it is stupid, but the argument that they cannot in actual fact consent to do something because the law presumes them not to have consented when it is done to them is clearly nonsense.

I don't think I am. as I understand it, the law presumes children cannot consent to sex because it is thought that up to the age of consent, they are too young to weigh up rationally the pros and cons of having sexual intercourse with a particular person on a particular occasion. It is not that there is some physical wiring - it's that we, as a society, have decided they don't have the judgement.

If they don't have that judgement absent the question of financial incentives, how does introducing a financial incentive make the ability to judge suddenly present?

The question is not whether the child agrees to do it, but whether that agreement means anything. The introduction of consideration into the transaction doesn't seem, to me, to affect that.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The DLT case highlights a few concerns for me:

Number one: Whatever happened to the concept of reasonable doubt?

"I was touched 20 years ago" - I'm going to be harsh here on the victim, but it seems to me there is a prima facie impossibility to that ever passing the "reasonable doubt" test and should never get to court.

Number two: The unfairness of fame. One principle of law is that everyone should be judged equally in front of it. IT does seem that with some of the Celeb cases, that is not happening. They are getting put in front of juries for things that no police force would ever consider taking to court for a non-famous person. I'm not sure that can be right.

Number three: The concept of consent itself binary: "Yes/no", however, the process of how an individual establishes whether consent has in fact occurred is simply not so clear cut, and it is that second point which is what a court of law is really assessing.

A defendant should be found "not guilty" if he is able to show that, in good faith, he (or she) had good reason to feel consent to something had occurred, even if, in fact he was mistaken...again, going back to the principle of reasonable doubt. (If the circumstances give reasonable assumption of consent, then, logically and legally, it must be the case that there is reasonable doubt as to how authentic the alleged victim's later denial of consent is, and hence make conviction unsound.)

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 3M Matt:

Number two: The unfairness of fame.

We, as a society, forgive the famous far more than we persecute them. So, yes, fame is unfair.
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Welease Woderwick

Sister Incubus Nightmare
# 10424

 - Posted      Profile for Welease Woderwick   Email Welease Woderwick   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whilst I am categorically NOT saying that some of it is not justified, as some of it clearly is, and about time to, but since the early 1990s abuse, particularly [in UK] sexual abuse, has become a fashionable subject - prior to that, of course, there was a growing body of evidence of the prevalence of physical abuse [Maria Colwell, Paul Brown, etc.] but suddenly it took off in the press and the public consciousness. Looking back at my child care days in the 1970s I can name a dozen or more kids who were at one time or another in my care who had probably been sexually abused - but put that in the context of dealing with around a thousand kids in that decade.

The pendulum swings and, hopefully, it will swing back - but not, I hope, all the way.

Let's have justice and fairness but let's move away from the hysteria - we don't need witch-hunts!

[ 26. October 2014, 09:51: Message edited by: Welease Woderwick ]

--------------------
I give thanks for unknown blessings already on their way.
Fancy a break in South India?
Accessible Homestay Guesthouse in Central Kerala, contact me for details

What part of Matt. 7:1 don't you understand?

Posts: 48139 | From: 1st on the right, straight on 'til morning | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715

 - Posted      Profile for ExclamationMark   Email ExclamationMark   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Whilst I am categorically NOT saying that some of it is not justified, as some of it clearly is, and about time to, but since the early 1990s abuse, particularly [in UK] sexual abuse, has become a fashionable subject - prior to that, of course, there was a growing body of evidence of the prevalence of physical abuse [Maria Colwell, Paul Brown, etc.] but suddenly it took off in the press and the public consciousness. Looking back at my child care days in the 1970s I can name a dozen or more kids who were at one time or another in my care who had probably been sexually abused - but put that in the context of dealing with around a thousand kids in that decade.

The pendulum swings and, hopefully, it will swing back - but not, I hope, all the way.

Let's have justice and fairness but let's move away from the hysteria - we don't need witch-hunts!

In the 1970's you weren't really trained to see it - and if it was spotted then only the most extreme cases ever got to court. It was sort of "understood" as cultural in some circles (public schools e.g).

In any event what we class as abuse today was often seen as high spirits or the wandering hand then. It was all brought home to me when my form teacher from 1970 - 71 was convicted of abuse just a few years ago. A lot of the stuff he did, made sense many years later - to report it then would've meant we were laughed at or even disciplined ourselves.

Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged
Piglet
Islander
# 11803

 - Posted      Profile for Piglet   Email Piglet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree with Exclamation Mark: we're guilty of judging previous generations by today's attitudes and standards.

To take an extreme example, if you spoke treason against the king 500 years ago you were put to death horribly; now you'd probably get a job with the Grauniad.

When I was growing up (rather more recently [Big Grin] ), corporal punishment was an accepted hazard of childhood - and you soon found out where the boundaries were. These days if a teacher (or anyone else) so much as looks at a child the wrong way, the child seems perfectly entitled to cry "abuse".

--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music

Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, I think that's the wrong way around.

We put up with stuff in the 70s and 80s that we no longer find acceptable. The wandering hands, the quick grope in passing, the permanently abusive comments (which would have been described as being a bit off colour then).

Why should it be acceptable that men (and women in those female dominated workplaces where, for example, the errand boys were abused) could embarrass and grope members of the opposite sex for their own amusement?

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Piglet
Islander
# 11803

 - Posted      Profile for Piglet   Email Piglet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... stuff ... that we no longer find acceptable ... [my italics]

That's my point - it may not actually have been acceptable, but it was, in a way, accepted, because it hadn't yet occurred to anyone to raise objections.

--------------------
I may not be on an island any more, but I'm still an islander.
alto n a soprano who can read music

Posts: 20272 | From: Fredericton, NB, on a rather larger piece of rock | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... stuff ... that we no longer find acceptable ... [my italics]

That's my point - it may not actually have been acceptable, but it was, in a way, accepted, because it hadn't yet occurred to anyone to raise objections.
I don't think it was because it never occured to anyone. It was because the victims had no power and culture pressured them to endure the abuse.

--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou

Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Curiosity killed ...

Ship's Mug
# 11770

 - Posted      Profile for Curiosity killed ...   Email Curiosity killed ...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There were people who objected at the time. They just garnered additional abuse for lacking in a sense of humour or being stuffy.

Eventually enough people objected enough for this to be seen as unacceptable now.

--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat

Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

I was reading only a couple of weeks ago, the autobiography of a 1980s singer in a very popular group, who said that every night the roadcrew would usher girls into the dressing room and there would be full on sex every single night with numerous girls.

Did any of them have birth certificates to prove their age? Of course not.
Did anyone know these girls' names or where they came from? Were records taken? Of course not.
Were the pop stars sober enough to know the difference between a 15 year of and 16 year old? Of course not.

We all know about groupies - someone, someday, might think it'll be a good idea to make an accusation. There will be no proof either way of course, and the case might never get anywhere. But as we know, once the accusation is made, guilt is decided immediately by the media.

And, God forbid that a boy makes the accusation!
SCR anyone?

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

You'd say the same about Jimmy Savile would you? That he was just 'sleeping with girls' who happened to be only 14?

Having sex with a 14 year old is abuse - however keen or 'up for it' they were at the time.

The police in Rotherham are only just discovering this fact too.


[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116

 - Posted      Profile for Mudfrog   Email Mudfrog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

You'd say the same about Jimmy Savile would you? That he was just 'sleeping with girls' who happened to be only 14?

Having sex with a 14 year old is abuse - however keen or 'up for it' they were at the time.

The police in Rotherham are only just discovering this fact too.


[Roll Eyes]

erm, I would never defend such behaviour in the slightest; but you have missed the point.

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.

--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wonder how many pop stars and TV celebrities from the 60s and 70s are waiting in silent fear for the two uniforms to appear on their doorstep after an opportunist accusation from a girl or girls who can remember sleeping with said pop star after a concert when he was young and attractive to hundreds of groupies and she (they) were actually only 14 at the time.

You'd say the same about Jimmy Savile would you? That he was just 'sleeping with girls' who happened to be only 14?

Having sex with a 14 year old is abuse - however keen or 'up for it' they were at the time.

The police in Rotherham are only just discovering this fact too.


[Roll Eyes]

erm, I would never defend such behaviour in the slightest; but you have missed the point.

It is well-known that musicians and singers have always had groupies and lots of sex. I am saying that if they assumed that they were all over 16 they might have inadvertantly slept with someone who pretended to be of age who wasn't.

Innocence is one thing, ignorance is another, and too often people in an exalted position have misused that privilege. Politicians do it, movie producers do it, pastors do it, pop stars and broadcasters do it too.

We shouldn't be surprised and we shouldn't be condemnatory. But we have to deal with it.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools