Post by Liberian Girl on Oct 25, 2019 11:51:07 GMT
JAN MOIR laments the harsh fate of a 'shy' schoolboy convicted of sexual assault for touching a fellow pupil on the waist while 'trying to talk to her' after Googling 'how to make friends'
Jamie Griffiths has now learned his fate. The shy schoolboy who touched a fellow pupil on the arm and waist as he tried to talk to her in the street has been sentenced.
After being found guilty in a Manchester court of two charges of sexual assault, Griffiths was ordered to pay her £250 compensation and complete a 12-month community order with 200 hours of unpaid work.
He also has to sign the Sex Offender Register for the next five years — his real punishment.
It still seems a rather harsh price to pay for a bumbling, adolescent attempt at friendship; for the physical expression of the inarticulate speech of the teenage heart. He was trying to make a friend, he told the court, ‘but the words didn’t come out’.
As his accuser melts back into the comforting shadows of anonymity, Griffiths, 19, must bear this stain on his character for the rest of his life, with a conviction that may disqualify him from many sectors of employment.
He may have been foolhardy, he may have been clumsy — and possibly may still be a risk — but he is hardly Jeffrey Epstein.
One can only imagine how this verdict strikes a chill into the souls of those mothers and fathers who must try to shepherd their shy boys taking their first hopeful steps towards love and romance in this febrile atmosphere.
For Griffiths’s chief crime seems to have been pimply gaucherie, not dark intent.
Consider his sentence with the recent case involving Paul Gascoigne. After kissing a woman on a train last year, the former England footballer has just been found not guilty of sexual assault.
Gascoigne said he was only trying to cheer up the woman after someone in the carriage called her fat.
If he was so concerned about her emotional well-being, why didn’t he remonstrate with her fat-shaming tormentor instead of pressing his foolish, booze-sodden lips upon hers?
If chivalry was his aim, that would surely have been the goal.
Gascoigne is a grown-up, a man of the world, a father and former husband. Yes, he is fragile and pathetic in equal measure, but how can he kiss a stranger on the lips without consent and be cleared, while this hapless teenager is found guilty?
The answer seems to lie with motive and intent — and also the desperate attempts of courts not to look out of touch in this post #MeToo world.
The judge in Jamie Griffiths’s case told him; ‘We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.’
The verdict in Paul Gascoigne’s case seemed to hinge on his celebrity insistence that he was only trying to help, that there was no sexual intent.
Maybe the very fact that she was ‘a fat lass’ helped his case — shameful if true.
Yet who can accurately divine intent in these delicate circumstances?
Truly, it is hard not to surmise that things would have been better for all involved if both females had said: ‘Get off me, you idiot,’ and then got on with their lives.
Not that any woman should have to put up with a man laying a hand on her person without her consent, but a sense of perspective wouldn’t go amiss. Cases such as these make one wonder if the #MeToo movement, two years old this week, has gone too far. On the positive side, it has made it easier for women (and men) to speak out about sexual harassment.
And it has made some men think not once, not twice, but thrice before laying a clammy hand on a comely knee.
But it has also made some women feel that flirtation and speculative physical contact are an offence on a par with serious sexual assault and rape.
Today, fear and mistrust flourish among the sexes like never before. What our grandparents innocently called courting is now a war zone, full of traps, pitfalls and suspicions.
Jamie Griffiths had Googled ‘how to make a friend’ and then plotted to come into contact with his fellow pupil during two attempts to engage her in conversation. It is perfectly understandable how she could have been frightened or felt that she was being stalked.
She told police that Griffiths would have touched her breast had she not moved away from him — but how can she be sure?
Court reports detailed the effect on her well-being, which was extensive. Her school work suffered, she was unable to sit her mock exams, she became stressed and anxious and felt unsafe in her own home.
In addition, she was constantly tearful, unable to walk anywhere alone and the incident had hindered her application to Oxford. ‘It has affected my grades and potentially my future,’ she said in a
statement. Well, not quite as much as it is going to affect his.
Griffiths was socially inept and immature, and has received counselling in relation to anxiety and depression. Reading between the lines, he was not the only person involved who was in a fragile emotional state, yet there is no clemency for him.
This is a sorry tale of our times and another indication that it is time for a complete overhaul of sex offence prosecutions.
In real life, important nuances exist between flirtation and assault, between affection and attack. And that should be reflected in the courts, too.
Jamie Griffiths has now learned his fate. The shy schoolboy who touched a fellow pupil on the arm and waist as he tried to talk to her in the street has been sentenced.
After being found guilty in a Manchester court of two charges of sexual assault, Griffiths was ordered to pay her £250 compensation and complete a 12-month community order with 200 hours of unpaid work.
He also has to sign the Sex Offender Register for the next five years — his real punishment.
It still seems a rather harsh price to pay for a bumbling, adolescent attempt at friendship; for the physical expression of the inarticulate speech of the teenage heart. He was trying to make a friend, he told the court, ‘but the words didn’t come out’.
As his accuser melts back into the comforting shadows of anonymity, Griffiths, 19, must bear this stain on his character for the rest of his life, with a conviction that may disqualify him from many sectors of employment.
He may have been foolhardy, he may have been clumsy — and possibly may still be a risk — but he is hardly Jeffrey Epstein.
One can only imagine how this verdict strikes a chill into the souls of those mothers and fathers who must try to shepherd their shy boys taking their first hopeful steps towards love and romance in this febrile atmosphere.
For Griffiths’s chief crime seems to have been pimply gaucherie, not dark intent.
Consider his sentence with the recent case involving Paul Gascoigne. After kissing a woman on a train last year, the former England footballer has just been found not guilty of sexual assault.
Gascoigne said he was only trying to cheer up the woman after someone in the carriage called her fat.
If he was so concerned about her emotional well-being, why didn’t he remonstrate with her fat-shaming tormentor instead of pressing his foolish, booze-sodden lips upon hers?
If chivalry was his aim, that would surely have been the goal.
Gascoigne is a grown-up, a man of the world, a father and former husband. Yes, he is fragile and pathetic in equal measure, but how can he kiss a stranger on the lips without consent and be cleared, while this hapless teenager is found guilty?
The answer seems to lie with motive and intent — and also the desperate attempts of courts not to look out of touch in this post #MeToo world.
The judge in Jamie Griffiths’s case told him; ‘We can think of no motivation for you to touch the victim other than sexual.’
The verdict in Paul Gascoigne’s case seemed to hinge on his celebrity insistence that he was only trying to help, that there was no sexual intent.
Maybe the very fact that she was ‘a fat lass’ helped his case — shameful if true.
Yet who can accurately divine intent in these delicate circumstances?
Truly, it is hard not to surmise that things would have been better for all involved if both females had said: ‘Get off me, you idiot,’ and then got on with their lives.
Not that any woman should have to put up with a man laying a hand on her person without her consent, but a sense of perspective wouldn’t go amiss. Cases such as these make one wonder if the #MeToo movement, two years old this week, has gone too far. On the positive side, it has made it easier for women (and men) to speak out about sexual harassment.
And it has made some men think not once, not twice, but thrice before laying a clammy hand on a comely knee.
But it has also made some women feel that flirtation and speculative physical contact are an offence on a par with serious sexual assault and rape.
Today, fear and mistrust flourish among the sexes like never before. What our grandparents innocently called courting is now a war zone, full of traps, pitfalls and suspicions.
Jamie Griffiths had Googled ‘how to make a friend’ and then plotted to come into contact with his fellow pupil during two attempts to engage her in conversation. It is perfectly understandable how she could have been frightened or felt that she was being stalked.
She told police that Griffiths would have touched her breast had she not moved away from him — but how can she be sure?
Court reports detailed the effect on her well-being, which was extensive. Her school work suffered, she was unable to sit her mock exams, she became stressed and anxious and felt unsafe in her own home.
In addition, she was constantly tearful, unable to walk anywhere alone and the incident had hindered her application to Oxford. ‘It has affected my grades and potentially my future,’ she said in a
statement. Well, not quite as much as it is going to affect his.
Griffiths was socially inept and immature, and has received counselling in relation to anxiety and depression. Reading between the lines, he was not the only person involved who was in a fragile emotional state, yet there is no clemency for him.
This is a sorry tale of our times and another indication that it is time for a complete overhaul of sex offence prosecutions.
In real life, important nuances exist between flirtation and assault, between affection and attack. And that should be reflected in the courts, too.