Yeah when I saw it there earlier the comments were at 0, maybe I just happened to be one of the first to see it. I stay off reddit now but I was just surprised that people hadn't jumped on it as...
Yeah when I saw it there earlier the comments were at 0, maybe I just happened to be one of the first to see it. I stay off reddit now but I was just surprised that people hadn't jumped on it as quickly
I hadnt heard of "indecent assault" before. I dont really understand the distinction between indecent and sexual assault.
Brand was convicted of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault involving four women. He was acquitted of two rape counts and one count of attempted indecent assault.
I hadnt heard of "indecent assault" before. I dont really understand the distinction between indecent and sexual assault.
EDIT: see other explanations, this is more about it being a conviction on older charges in this circumstance. Legal language remains weird. Indecent assault meaning in UK Law - Glossary -...
EDIT: see other explanations, this is more about it being a conviction on older charges in this circumstance. Legal language remains weird.
Non consensual, intentionally sexual contact that does not include penetration.
Laws on this vary, in my state this would be "Criminal sexual abuse" rather than "sexual assault" or the UK "indecent assault"
It's one of those things where legal terms are generally very specific but then vary enough to be confusing when mixed up with casual language.
Nah, I'm pretty sure this is not what's up. According to your source also, If the assaults had all been 2004 or later they all would have been sexual assaults. It’s just naming convention.
Nah, I'm pretty sure this is not what's up. According to your source also,
In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland, “indecent assault” was a statutory offence under earlier sexual offences legislation, historically divided into offences against women/girls and men/boys. It has now been abolished and replaced by broader offences such as sexual assault and assault by penetration (Sexual Offences Act 2003 in England and Wales; Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008). The expression still appears in historic charges, appeals, sentencing, Criminal Records disclosures and historic abuse litigation.
If the assaults had all been 2004 or later they all would have been sexual assaults. It’s just naming convention.
Ah thanks I didn't go into the case to see! Further proof that legal language makes stuff weird and complicated contrasted with common use. I've edited my comment to point folks to the other...
Ah thanks I didn't go into the case to see!
Further proof that legal language makes stuff weird and complicated contrasted with common use. I've edited my comment to point folks to the other explanations.
As I understand it, this is a historical naming issue owing to the time period the assaults took place. Post-2004, it's sexual assault under Sexual Offences Act 2003. Before that, it's indecent...
As I understand it, this is a historical naming issue owing to the time period the assaults took place. Post-2004, it's sexual assault under Sexual Offences Act 2003. Before that, it's indecent assault under Sexual Offences Act 1956. The indecent assault was in 2001.
I guess we're all waiting for sentencing on this, haven't seen a lot of chatter on social media
It's on the FP on reddit. Unless you mean any the sentencing specifically.
Yeah when I saw it there earlier the comments were at 0, maybe I just happened to be one of the first to see it. I stay off reddit now but I was just surprised that people hadn't jumped on it as quickly
I hadnt heard of "indecent assault" before. I dont really understand the distinction between indecent and sexual assault.
EDIT: see other explanations, this is more about it being a conviction on older charges in this circumstance. Legal language remains weird.
Indecent assault meaning in UK Law - Glossary - LexisNexis UK
Non consensual, intentionally sexual contact that does not include penetration.
Laws on this vary, in my state this would be "Criminal sexual abuse" rather than "sexual assault" or the UK "indecent assault"
It's one of those things where legal terms are generally very specific but then vary enough to be confusing when mixed up with casual language.
Nah, I'm pretty sure this is not what's up. According to your source also,
If the assaults had all been 2004 or later they all would have been sexual assaults. It’s just naming convention.
Ah thanks I didn't go into the case to see!
Further proof that legal language makes stuff weird and complicated contrasted with common use. I've edited my comment to point folks to the other explanations.
As I understand it, this is a historical naming issue owing to the time period the assaults took place. Post-2004, it's sexual assault under Sexual Offences Act 2003. Before that, it's indecent assault under Sexual Offences Act 1956. The indecent assault was in 2001.
Ah, I see. That makes sense.
I think the new term is better. "Indecent" is vague and doesnt really get across how strong of misconduct it is.