UK Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[Guinastasia]

@tumbleddown

There’s no evidence of lewd comments, nor do we have any understanding of what the touching was about. The presumption is, that because he is chronologically an adult who has had sexual contact with other adults that his contact with the girls on the bus (the only reported touching) was sexual as well. But that’s presuming facts not in evidence; his intent toward the girls could easily have been wholly innocent.

But we do have evidence:

On 12 September 2008 a young boy in a dentist’s waiting area observed a man touching his groin, licking his lips and was then asked by the man for his name. The dentist’s diary showed that Alan was due for an appointment at that time.

On 10 September 2008 two girls aged 9 and 10 stated that when travelling on a bus a man had commented upon their physical appearance, touched their upper legs and then attempted to look up their skirts. The police were notified. On 4 October 2008 these two girls were travelling on the bus once again, as was Alan. The girls notified the bus driver who also notified the police. Alan was then taken to the police station and questioned. However, the police decided that no further action should be taken against him.

If someone was touching MY daughter’s legs and trying to look up her skirt, you better believe I’d think it was sexual! Perhaps his intent wasn’t sexual – okay, I’ll go with that for the sake of the argument (although I think that’s bullshit). BUT, it’s still inappropriate, and do you honestly think it’s okay to permit him to behave this way, simply because he doesn’t know any better?

[tumbleddown]

@Guinastasia

But we do have evidence:

The trouble I’m having is with the vagueness of this report. What does “touched their upper legs” mean? Does it mean he reached across the aisle and ran his hands up their thighs? Or does it mean when sitting next to them, his leg pressed against theirs, or his hand did because it was on the seat? Did he touch both of them? Was the bus empty, that no one else saw this or said anything at the time?

I read the court report, and the description of the incident is no clearer there. But it still seems a weird basis on which to justify stopping consensual and age-appropriate sexual contact. Even accused rapists out on bail (still at risk of being convicted) are allowed to have consensual sex, for pity’s sake.

[gurujulp]

@AK84

^
I stand corrected, though IIRC legally bought would have been under the Lunacy Act (now known as the Mental Health Acts).
Disagree. He was touching and making lewd comments at young chidlren, something six years olds do not generally do.

When is the last time you spent time in an elementary school?

My daughter’s first week in kindergarten, a six year old who had been held back from the previous year in kindergarten for absences put his hand up her dress and discussed how many girlfriends he had who gave him oral sex.