List Mgmt. The Hangover

[jmac70]

Yes I easily can imagine very many minor infringements but I don’t want to speculate.

Why?
I’m just trying to understand your point of view. We have two men charged with indecent assault against one women.
What could they be found guilty of that would be ok for Jordan to continue playing for Collingwood?

An unsolicited kiss?
A pinch on the bum?
Grabbing a breast?

Interested in your thoughts.

 

[sideswipe]

Why?
I’m just trying to understand your point of view. We have two men charged with indecent assault against one women.
What could they be found guilty of that would be ok for Jordan to continue playing for Collingwood?

An unsolicited kiss?
A pinch on the bum?
Grabbing a breast?

Interested in your thoughts.

Why not give the speculation a rest until the case is finalised? It isn't helpful to either the alleged victim or JDG and his mate. Or us.

 

[Kappa]

Can you describe what a minor infringement of indecent assault would look like?

You’re at a bar with a girl who is flirting with you then you stroke her arm and she says she didn’t consent to it…

 

[jmac70]

Why not give the speculation a rest until the case is finalised? It isn't helpful to either the alleged victim or JDG and his mate. Or us.

Fair enough.

 

[sideswipe]

You’re at a bar with a girl who is flirting with you then you stroke her arm and she says she didn’t consent to it…

Wrong. The contact needs to be "sexual" (now the term is "indecent"). Think 3 zones, no penetration.

 

[Kappa]

Wrong. The contact needs to be "sexual" (now the term is "indecent"). Think 3 zones, no penetration.

Uhh… wrong? Indecent assault can be on any part of the body if it’s done in a sexual manner, which is why I clearly said “stroking her arm”…

 

[sideswipe]

Uhh… wrong? Indecent assault can be on any part of the body if it’s done in a sexual manner, which is why I clearly said “stroking her arm”…

You must have gone to a different law school.Feel free to produce a sexual assault case that didn't involve TAP.

 

[Kappa]

You must have gone to a different law school.Feel free to produce a sexual assault case that didn't involve TAP.

Well we aren’t talking about sexual assault but…. Okay… here’s the definition from the nsw government page.

Indecent assault is touching (or the threat to to touch) a person's body in a sexual manner without consent by another person.

You’re a lawyer?

 

[jmac70]

You must have gone to a different law school.Feel free to produce a sexual assault case that didn't involve TAP.

He went to Google Law and graduated with honours

 

[sideswipe]

Well we aren’t talking about sexual assault but…. Okay… here’s the definition from the nsw government page.

Indecent assault is touching (or the threat to to touch) a person's body in a sexual manner without consent by another person.

You’re a lawyer?

A "wristy" isn't what you think it is. Haven't practised for 20 years, but yes I still meet the definition.

Edit: oh yeah and if you are going to google law stuff, make the effort to get the right jurisdiction.

 

[Kappa]

A "wristy" isn't what you think it is. Haven't practised for 20 years, but yes I still meet the definition.

Edit: oh yeah and if you are going to google law stuff, make the effort to get the right jurisdiction.

Tell me where is this Victorian indecent assault definition? Every Victorian law firm seems to be agreeing with me ?

 

[Kirby]

Well we aren’t talking about sexual assault but…. Okay… here’s the definition from the nsw government page.

Indecent assault is touching (or the threat to to touch) a person's body in a sexual manner without consent by another person.

You’re a lawyer?

Look Kappa, you're wrong and Sideswipe is right. You should just concede on this one.

There'd barely be a case in Victorian legal history of this charge that doesn't involve an unwanted touch of the three no-go areas (or close to them).

 

[sideswipe]

Tell me where is this Victorian indecent assault definition? Every Victorian law firm seems to be agreeing with me ?

Just like touching someone with your pinky can meet the strict definition of assault, the notion of sexual/indecent assault is necessarily broad. For example what Clarice copped in the face from Miggs might have met the definition. However in practice, if it doesn't involve TAP (or the Miggs example), it won't be sexual.

Your wrist example was ludicrous.

 

[Kirby]

I might point out that Jordan has had one charge laid against him. That suggests one solitary action is being alleged.

 

[Kappa]

Look Kappa, you're wrong and Sideswipe is right. You should just concede on this one.

There'd barely be a case in Victorian legal history of this charge that doesn't involve an unwanted touch of the three no-go areas (or close to them).

So it’s included in the legal definition in Victoria that it can only be on three parts of the body? Despite the NSW government and every Victorian law firm disagreeing? Ok.

Also “there’s probably hardly any cases” is not the strong argument you think it is.

 

[jmac70]

I might point out that Jordan has had one charge laid against him. That suggests one solitary action is being alleged.

Along with another man.

 

[Kirby]

So it’s included in the legal definition in Victoria that it can only be on three parts of the body? Despite the NSW government and every Victorian law firm disagreeing? Ok.

Also “there’s probably hardly any cases” is not the strong argument you think it is.

I'm not going to continue a discussion with you as you will not concede a single point.

 

[sideswipe]

So it’s included in the legal definition in Victoria that it can only be on three parts of the body? Despite the NSW government and every Victorian law firm disagreeing? Ok.

Also “there’s probably hardly any cases” is not the strong argument you think it is.

I often feel assaulted when I read your posts.

 

[Kappa]

Just like touching someone with your pinky can meet the strict definition of assault, the notion of sexual/indecent assault is necessarily broad. For example what Clarice copped in the face from Miggs might have met the definition. However in practice, if it doesn't involve TAP (or the Miggs example), it won't be sexual.

Your wrist example was ludicrous.

Right, so now you’re backing down from “strictly only 3 body parts” to “it’s pretty broad”. Also not once have I mentioned anyone’s wrist, why on earth do you keep bringing it up? And why do you keep confusing indecent assault and sexual assault?

Once again, I’ve provided the legal definition, I can also quote a dozen Victoria law firms which back up my claim, where is your legal definition?

 

[Kirby]

Along with another man.

Yes true. Once again, we don't know if it's either/or or it is alleged against both some action.

Let's just wait and see.

 

[Kappa]

I often feel assaulted when I read your posts.

Why don’t you just give me your legal definition that proves me wrong if it exists? You can’t?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Why?
I’m just trying to understand your point of view. We have two men charged with indecent assault against one women.
What could they be found guilty of that would be ok for Jordan to continue playing for Collingwood?

An unsolicited kiss?
A pinch on the bum?
Grabbing a breast?

Interested in your thoughts.

Along those lines but I have already told you I’m not interested in speculating.

On the fact that there were two men charged.... how is that relevant? Does it suddenly make JDG more guilty because he had a mate with him?

At the risk of repeatedly referring to Swan.... he had a couple of mates with him on the day.

 

[Kappa]

I'm not going to continue a discussion with you as you will not concede a single point.

Maybe try providing evidence like I have instead of “it is because I said so”.

 

[jmac70]

Why don’t you just give me your legal definition that proves me wrong if it exists? You can’t?

Have you considered becoming a lawyer? Your cross examination is fearsome!

 

[jmac70]

Along those lines but I have already told you I’m not interested in speculating.

On the fact that there were two men charged.... how is that relevant? Does it suddenly make JDG more guilty because he had a mate with him?

At the risk of repeatedly referring to Swan.... he had a couple of mates with him on the day.

One women, two men. It’s not hard to do the math.