Student jailed for slapping woman with mantool whilst she sleeps

http://trent.tab.co.uk/2014/10/21/c...r-slapping-a-girl-in-the-face-with-his-*****/

Thoughts? A lot of the discussion up here seems to be comparing it to the paedo rings that go unpunished. But then again its his fault for allowing evidence to be recorded and then even show it himself to others

 

I'm going to take a flyer at this and suggest it wasn't a good thing to do.

 

I'm going to take a flyer at this and suggest it wasn't a good thing to film.

 

At least he admitted it. He'd taken enough classes to know that '4 bantz/lad points' probably wouldn't constitute a sufficient defence.

 

I'm going to take a flyer at this and suggest it wasn't a good thing to watch

 

I'm going to take a flyer at this and suggest he's gots all he deserves.

 

Well obviously it's ridiculous that you can give someone permanent brain damage by punching them and escape jail and an idiotic drunken prank gets jail time.

But that probably says more about the poor quality of our justice system with regard to violence as opposed to this sentence.

 

Is that a real example?

 

Think so although I only read the article quickly. Was in Devon - in front of 2 coppers as well. The good news is though that he has to attend a "thinking skills course"

Found it

http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/...escapes-jail/story-22855251-detail/story.html

 

I wonder what his relationship was with this woman. I'd imagine if they were friends she might have spoken up for him in court and played down the victim statement. However that doesn't appear to have happened which suggests either they were not known to each other, or she knows him and he has questionable prior behaviour.

If the offence is mostly concerned with the filming then the two of them are equally guilty IMO. It doesn't seem quite like a custodial offence, but if it was done to me (can't quite imagine how or where) I'd be livid.

 

Hard to fathom the reasoning behind the sentence. Lucky little ****.

 

It would be harder to forget if you know that all the people round campus have seen it, but it does feel that the fact that it wasn't sexually motivated and was just motivated by idiocy should make a difference to the punishment.

 

My old housemates lesbian rugby player friend put her boobs in my face whilst sleeping then sprayed whipped cream on my trousers to suggest I *****ed myself. It was once on Facebook but upon her request it was deleted by another fat lesbo who took it. I saw the funny side, kind of.

I could have got compo. I could have ruined her career.

 

He slapped his ***** in the face of an unconscious women and filmed it to show to his mates. I know his barrister said it wasn't sexually motivated, but that doesn't make it a fact.
Although for the impact on the victim, i don't think that even matters.

 

By that logic there should be no difference in sentencing between murder and manslaughter. The victim is still dead after all.

 

It was a stupid thing to do, but ultimately it was just an ill conceived drunken prank, so to be given 9 months jail does seem a little OTT, especially when certain people only get 10 months jail for shooting someone dead

 

As I said, just because his barrister said it was a non-sexual prank, doesn't make it true. But I would expect nothing less from a leftie bleeding heart like yourself. Always trying to explain away the actions of the criminal and ignoring the rights of the victim.

 

No it doesn't make it fact. But the guys intentions are surely relevant to his sentence. You seem to be implying that it isn't.

 

Had he done this with a wet fish or his open hand covered in a light mayonnaise and filmed it, do you believe he would still have deserved 9 months in prison?

 

To jumbolina

Im not implying that. I'm explicitly saying that you said it was a fact he acted out of idiocy rather than sexual gratification, which I think places a lot of faith in the criminal, because it is not a fact.

Then i said you were a drippy liberal because you are less concerned about the victim and want to give this guy a vote, you faceless Eurocrat.

 

I'm not sure what, if anything, you understood from my post.

To answer your seemingly completely unconnected question, maybe? In your mind, did this wet fish hurt? Did it break her nose? Was it a protected species that he killed himself? Is slapping a sleeping woman in the face ok with mayonnaise? Is it a hard slap? Did he shout 'I ****ing hate the Jews' when he did it?

 

Just wondering where the boundary between victim and 'non-victim' situations lies with you.

If he'd shoved a custard pie in her face, not only would it have been funnier, it wouldn't have resulted in him going to prison. but the circumstances would have been similar, with only the weapon of choice being different.

She would have been no more or no less a victim.

 

That's true except I don't think she should be prosecuted for being the subject of Orny's fantasies

 

9 months of taxpayer funds seems pretty disproportionate to the offence. It's was a really stupid student prank to say the least, but it hardly seems serious enough to merit a custodial sentence.

 

I can confirm that at no point was I aroused throughout my ordeal. If anything, it put me off women completely.... For a good five or ten minutes or so. I still feel distressed, alarmed and violated from the actions of a giant lesbo who took advantage of a younger, weaker and more vulnerable member of society. It's not my fault that she is a giant and was unable to have sex through genuine consent. She should have cut down more on her pork life mate. The fat f**k. This person should be locked up for life. I still wake up on the sofa seven years later in a cold sweat, thinking that maybe I'm being tortured. It's ruined my life.

 

If you're asking me a genuine question then, after careful consideration, I think slapping a person in the face with a ***** is wrong. I think putting a custard pie in someone's face is right. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.

But again, my main point was that just because his barrister said it was a harmless prank does not necessarily make it a harmless prank.
My second, more general non-serious point was that if your immediate inclination is to automatically defend the culprit and conpletely ignore the victim, then you must be a bleeding heart liberal who wants to give rapists the vote and ignore the suffering of tax payers e.t.c

 

I'm not sure people feel for the culprit. However what makes me certainly scratch my head is that we have a justice system that allows people to repeatedly assault others without jail time but this guy gets put away. I'm quite happy for this guy to get 9 months, if you let me lock up people who commit serious assault for 5 years. However, when I want more draconian sentencing I'm told we have to rehabilitate people. However, this "modern" way of thinking doesn't seem to apply in this case and he gets the book thrown at him.

 

Certainly the other cases need looking at then.

Here though (based purely on the article provided), the woman/victim feels violated and the courts feel she has undergone obvious and significant stress.
So with that in mind I'm curious as to why people think she isn't a victim?
The guy has slapped an unconscious woman who I don't think he knew, in the face with his *****, filmed it and then disseminated it to his friends, one of whom was disturbed enough to contact the police.
So with that in mind, how can some people consider this a harmless drunken prank?

If its a genuine case of thinking 9 months is too long, fair enough, but i don't think saying its because she is not a proper victim, that it wasn't a proper crime or because it costs taxpayers money is right.

 

Fan, has age, and living abroad changed your political leanings? (for the record, this is an unrelated question to the discussion at hand).

 

You didn't answer the question. I wasn't asking if you felt custard pie forced facials were right, I asked where the boundary line between victim and non-victim is in incidents such as this one.

The only reason this is being mentioned in the same breath as rape is because a ***** is involved. Again, a custard pie forced facial would not be mentioned in the same way and would probably be laughed at if it was.

 

I think we should begin malism trend, this feminism malarkey has got out of hand.

 

1. you mean i did't answer this question?
"Had he done this with a wet fish or his open hand covered in a light mayonnaise and filmed it, do you believe he would still have deserved 9 months in prison?"
apologies, i honest;y thought it was ironic. but no. obviously. unless the fish was a protected species. or she was really allergic to mayo and he knew it. or he somehow concussed her.

2. well yeah, it's a bit more serious because it's a *****. obviously, it changes the whole situation. it's like asking the difference between watching bambi with your child and the human centipede. both are just dvd's context is everything.

3. unless i'm very much mistaken, you are the only person to mention rape on this thread? so i think you're arguing with yourself there!

4. i really think you're on your own with the custard pie tangent.

 

Gonna take a flyer at this and say what about the abused kids at rotheram sheffield ,brum etc etc Honestly sending this lad to prison is an effin joke PC gone mad again , Whatever happened to Great Britain?