And next it's Alex Salmond

I don't think so!!

Certainly not by you!

By me - and all the other women on this and other threads who have challenged your posts which have put the blame at the door of the women who have been assaulted and attacked and murdered.

I'm prepared to wait until after the trial to judge his guilt.
But I do wonder I know a few women who insist on hugging and even kissing you when they meet you. Is this to be considered assault as well?
I also think there might be a case for bringing back the Edwardian hat pin.

Here’s a link to the Scottish Govt site that explains what sexual assault is www.mygov.scot/rape-assault/

I agree trisher. My DH's cousin (chap) was always a bit over enthusiastic with his greetings and 'silly' comments! It was harmless but disconcerting and tedious! I was glad when we moved! Would this now be considered an assault?!
I find the alleged assault on the bed by A.S a bit hard to believe, but who knows, it could be true. Time will tell! hopefully.

The hatpin!! Very useful in the Cinema!!!

Jabber I used to use my stiletto heel! We used to have non-verbal ways of saying no, verbal ways and then physical ways. I simply wouldn't be traumatised years later if someone had put his hand on my bottom once. But then I was never traumatised by a man whistling at me, just thought they were stupid!

Thanks for the link SirChenjin I think I already knew most of that. The question is how can you be certain that a man has sexual intentions when he hugs, kisses or touches your bottom? or certain that a woman hasn't sexual intentions when she does the same things. The problem is that the restrictions that once protected us have slipped and now someone can be huggy and kissey without any other intentions, simply enthusiastic, but it can land a man in serious trouble.
I do think that women taking action with a hat pin, stiletto heel or with a slap would stop men behaving in this way. Far more than the prosecution of some public figure. I'm not blaming the victims who have done nothing to deserve the attention, simply wishing that women could act more forcefully, defend themselves and stop such behaviour, be the attention sexual or not.

How often have we thought at the time things like “Rolf Harris? Surely not!” Or Jimmy Saville? Bonkers but surely harmless?” Or perhaps some of you have found it hard to be be believed about “uncle Frank” or (even worse) “Dad! Surely not”
What I am saying is that perhaps we have been naive, or gullible or innocent but OMG the scales are falling off the eyes now. I am fortunate in never, ever encountering any sort of abuse - doesn’t mean it’s not happening all over the place though.

I'd forgotten about stilettos Nonnie! They could be used to great effect with the added bonus of appearing to be 'a mistake on purpose' if appropriate!!
I certainly never minded a cheeky woof whistle, It could actually be a bit disappointing if a friend got one and I didn't! Light hearted banter never bothered me at all, within limits!
I can remember slapping the face of a family member many many years ago which did the trick, but made future family get togethers a bit awkward! He died and I'm old! problem sorted!!

The question is how can you be certain that a man has sexual intentions when he hugs, kisses or touches your bottom? or certain that a woman hasn't sexual intentions when she does the same things

There is no 'question'. For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify (Source: www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/jan/13/its-not-groping-or-fondling-it-is-sexual-assault)
According to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the elements of the offence of sexual assault are:

• A person (A) intentionally touches another person (B)

• the touching is sexual

• (B) does not consent to the touching, and (A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents.

The Crown Prosecution Service guidelines further clarify that “touching is widely defined and includes with any part of the body, or with anything else, and can be through clothing”. The definition is clear.

If you don't want the person to touch you or kiss you or hug you then it's wrong. Please don't claim that sticking a hat pin in the attacker is the solution and that women should simply learn to fight back - many women will freeze when they're assaulted or attacked and many will find themselves on the receiving end of an escalated attack if they try and defend themselves against someone who is much bigger than them. There is no one approach - every one is different - and until you've been in that situation it's impossible to say how you would act.

There was always something spooky and weird about Jimmy Saville, but Rolf Harris? As you say, who would have thought!

I was absolutely stunned at the news about Rolf Harris. I remember catching a glimpse of it on the news on TV in the waiting area where I worked. Everyone was so shocked. And sad too.

I find many of the charges levelled at AS laughable in the extreme and expect them to be treated with the derision they deserve. As for the others we will need to hear more detail before anyone is able to come to a reasonable conclusion. Certainly there is a knee jerk reaction when there are 10 women levelling complaints (the no smoke without fire attitude) but the pettiness of some of the supposed "assaults" smells of politically motivated attacks.

I don't suppose the procurator fiscal would accept that the charges were without merit Esspee otherwise these cases wouldn't be going to court. The police must have been satisfied that there good cases against him.

Weeding out probable and improbable would I suppose be difficult, and give rise to accusations of bias. Maybe best to accept all and see what stands up and what doesn't by process of illumination. I find some of the charges a bit unbelievable too, but I guess time will tell! Politically motivated? Could well be, in which case I feel very sorry for A.S and his wife as it must be horrible for both of them.

Each charge is considered on its own before it proceeds to court (or not) - it’s not a case of trying to weed out one from the other in one homogeneous mass. They are one attempted rape, one intent to rape, 10 sexual assaults and two indecent assaults.

My sympathies lie with the women.

SirChenjin of course some women will freeze and be unable to fight back, but if those women who could simply stamped, stabbed or slapped perhaps the men doing things would get the message and all women will be better protected. I do think there is a difference between men who physically wish to harm a woman and those who are trying a quick grope. Wouldn't it be better to stop the gropers earlier rather than having to wait years for legal action? Perhaps also we should be teaching girls to react to gropes loudly and physically.
I don't like being hugged or kissed by anyone unless it is someone I am really friendly with and strangely enough I find some women insist on hugging more than men do. But it isn't sexual, simply inappropriate and they soon realise I don't accept their uncalled-for attention.

if those women who could simply stamped, stabbed or slapped perhaps the men doing things would get the message and all women will be better protected

No trisher - men will get the message when they are raised from an early age to understand this is not acceptable behaviour; when society stops objectifying women; when women hold equal power; when we start to teach about healthy relationships from an early age; when the justice system starts taking women's complaints more seriously...the list is endless. Women shouldn't have to put themselves at risk of escalated violence by stamping on a man's foot (stilettos?? Very few women wear them nowadays and rightly so) - they need to know that the behaviour of these men is not tolerated at societal level and that the onus is not on women to behave a certain way. If men continue to behave in this manner then women have every right (morally and legally) to challenge them through the courts whenever they see fit.

SirChenjin you can educate all you want. You can teach as much as you like.You can take men to court and go through the legal system. There will still be the occasional man who will try it on with a woman and some of them will be stopped by a woman who takes action, who protests loudly in public, who slaps a face and draws attention to the man's actions. One of the reasons women keep quiet is because they think they are responsible in some way. I haven't said it is wrong to take legal action just that some might choose to do something more instant and stop being victims. Denying women that right is just as bad as denying them the right to legal action. Both are valuable ways of stopping unwanted attention.

1. I have not said that women are not free to stamp on a man if they choose to - but they shouldn’t be expected to for the sisterhood.
2. Of course women are afraid to speak out because they think they are responsible in some way - posts on this and other threads demonstrate that only too well.

Mmm
if those women who could simply stamped, stabbed or slapped perhaps the men doing things would get the message and all women will be better protected

No trisher
and
Women shouldn't have to put themselves at risk of escalated violence by stamping on a man's foot
That is not empowering or encouraging them. It is asking them to accept they must be victims

Not at all. I’m interested why you think that?

I totally agree with trisher on this one. There will always be laddish men who consider themselves Gods gift ( have they looked in the mirror lately?!!!) and try it on no matter how much society disapproves, in exactly the same way that you'll always get loutish behavior from any section of society from both men and women. A short sharp reminder can often work wonders. Both my GD's go to self defense classes which at least gives them an idea on how to protect themselves should it ever be necessary.