NOW LET'S GET THIS CLEAR FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL...
Firstly I have had a lot of Chianti and a lot of beer today and I am aware that one should not mix grape and grain. There may be typos and errors in what I write and I may not be expressing myself with my usual Churchillian clarity. But here goes.
Detterling you have persistently accused me of groping young female teaching colleagues. This never happened.
Yes, with my searing honesty, I have admitted that back in my teaching days I was wont to give a pat on the backside to shapely young female colleagues. But there was never any groping.
As any red-blooded man will admit a shapely derriere, particularly clad in figure-hugging slacks or leggings is extremely sexually provocative. And yes, I did take sexual pleasure from those avuncular-seeming pats on the backside. But the young ladies never knew this. As far as they were concerned this was just a middle-aged man being friendly. So no offence or misdemeanor took place.
There was no groping. Got that?
GENE
Of course there was groping, Gene, you dirty minded, drunken sod.
ReplyDeleteThe legal definition of the offence you committed is as follows:
"Sexual touching is a complex offence and the resulting legal process can be difficult to navigate. In order for sexual assault by touching to be proved in court, the following four criteria must be demonstrable:
You have touched another person intentionally
The touching of that person was sexual in nature
The person touched did not consent to being touched by you
You did not reasonably believe that the other person consented
Section 79 (8) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that:
Touching includes touching: (a) with any part of the body, (b) with anything else, (c) through anything.
This means that skin-on-skin contact is not necessary to constitute sexual assault by touching; the part of the victim’s body may be fully clothed and the contact will still be the same under the law."
Source: https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-a-sexual-touching-offence/
By any standards, and by your own vainglorious admissions, you have confirmed that sexual touching - ie groping - took place.
That was your first mistake.
And your second was posting this drunken babble on your blog. It has been screen-shot and copied and will be added to the Candlemas posting as further proof of your irredeemable nastiness. You silly silly sod, but what a piece of luck for me.
You might even call it a God send.
Your big mistake was to boast about it, and about having got away with it.
Nor did "searing honesty" have anything to do with it - your idea of honesty is simply a matter of saying whatever you think you can get away with, or whatever will get you out of a nasty corner long enough to preserve your self-esteem, which is the only thing that matters to an ornately stupid man like you.
DeleteRather than searing honesty, it is boasting about having got away with groping vulnerable young women in the staffroom at Douay Martyrs - swanking and wanking being about all that has been your sex-life for the past ten years.
Still and all, it is grist to the Candlemas mill. I sometimes think that, somewhere inside you, you actually want to be exposed and disgraced.
In that case, happy to oblige.
"And yes, I did take sexual pleasure from those avuncular-seeming pats on the backside. But the young ladies never knew this. As far as they were concerned this was just a middle-aged man being friendly. So no offence or misdemeanor took place."
ReplyDeleteGot that? So proving in court that they were sexually assaulted would be a non-starter.
GENE
Balls.
Delete"As far as they were concerned this was just a middle-aged man being friendly. So no offence or misdemeanor took place."
What these young women mauled by you thought was happening to them is a complete irrelevance in law, just as women coerced into having sex when they didn't want it sometimes don't realised that what has happened to them is rape. In groping these young women - probably reluctant to rock the boat by outing your unwelcome sexual touching to the management, your behaviour was at one end of a spectrum at the other end of which is rape. Nor is there any question of proving your crimes in court.
No, the issue is, simply, that you claim to be innocent of the crime of sexual touching as defined above.
You are wrong - you were and are as guilty as hell.
Chew on that thought, you grimy little bastard, and see how it tastes.
But by all means keep it coming. The more screenshots, the more material for the Candlemas Papers. Wow, it's beginning to take on a life of its own. Do you have some sort of an emotional death wish, Gene?
You sought sexual pleasure by groping them - that is an offence.
And if you want to know just why you are such an appalling writer, just ask yourself why the phrase " a shapely derriere" is so mincingly twee, so pretentiously non-U and shows such tin-eared awareness of genuine prosody, a construction to make any conscientious journeyman wince.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know why, do you? And that is why, at this moment, Granny Barkes fell in Woolworths is languishing, in the Amazon Best Selling Books list, at number 3,386,055. It's not so much that you don't know how to write, but that you think you do know how to write, although you actually don't.
Not knowing that you don't know, but thinking that you do, is the worst fate of all. It almost [but not quite] makes me feel sorry for you.
GENE, I ADVISE YOU TO READ AND THINK ABOUT THE POST BELOW VERY CAREFULLY INDEED.
ReplyDeleteYour recent postings have rightly drawn attention to the appalling shortcomings of Justin Welby over the John Smyth case. You have also highlighted the lack of integrity - questionable and possibly actionable - to be discerned in the actions of Stephen Cottrell over the case of the Revd David Tudor. The implication of your postings is that there can be - there should not be - anything resembling a statute of limitations over sexual offences of any kind.
For this reason I feel very strongly, in view of the exchange above, that I should place the facts of your admitted sexual misdemeanours detailed above and elsewhere on this blog, minor as they may seem, before F----- Mc-------, E-------- M---- and
T-- M--------- [respectively headteacher, staff governor and parish priest] at D---- M------ A------.
My reasons for doing this are twofold. The above testimony is the fourth time you have confessed to your habitual intimate touching of junior female colleagues, touching that purported to be physical expression of quasi-paternal concern but which was in fact a version of the sexual practice of frottage. From this repeated - and unsolicited confessional incontinence - I suggest that there is some part of you - a part possibly at the moment inaccessible to introspection - requiring confession, repentance and absolution from this unpleasant transgression.
Secondly, although you retired from teaching eight years ago, your targets and victims will still be professionally active, some of them possibly still working at Douay Martyrs. And like many victims of sexual abuse - your groping of young women being at one end of a spectrum at the other end of which is rape - they may still be troubled by what you did to them. Sexual touching - like rape - involves the dismissal - as an irrelevance - of the rights, needs and wishes of others, particularly those in any way less powerful than the offender. It is a well attested fact that such others, the victims, are left in urgent need of emotional renewal and closure. Two points of view - yours, the offender, and theirs, the victims - both in need of confession, absolution and closure.
It seems to me that placing this case in the hands of a select group of officials at Douay Martyrs could benefit all concerned - you, Gene, the offender, and those unfortunate young women who your assaults quite possibly still haunt their dreams.
What do you think? Should I go ahead with my plan?
"What do you think? Should I go ahead with my plan?"
ReplyDeleteIf your plan involves you getting stuffed by all means go ahead.
I'm afraid I am very intoxicated at the moment. I am closing down my computer.
GENE
Sober up, you drunken bastard, and read the above post again very carefully. You do realise that you have given yourself completely into my hands? No-one will ever know if [eg] Gregg Wallace is a sexual predator. But evidence that he might have been was enough to end his career.
ReplyDeleteJust as the evidence you have provided above - not least your feeble attempt at rebuttal, would be enough to destroy whatever is left of your reputation.
Think on, think hard and think carefully.
Oh! my God do I feel bad today! What has happened to the old Gene who could drink everyone under the table and wake up fresh as a daisy the next morning?
ReplyDeleteI have read through what I have written. Maybe indiscreet in parts but the message comes through loud and clear: THERE WAS NO GROPING.
Got that Detterling you aging so-and-so?
GENE
What has happened to the old Gene is that he got pissed out of his mind once too often, in a drunken frenzy boasted yet again about how he had got away with groping young female colleagues in school staffrooms and, in so doing, in effect dropped his trousers, squatted, took careful aim, and shat all over himself from a vast height. I could not believe my eyes - or my luck - when I read your confession:
ReplyDelete"I have admitted that back in my teaching days I was wont to give a pat on the backside to shapely young female colleagues. But there was never any groping. As any red-blooded man will admit, a shapely derriere, particularly clad in figure-hugging slacks or leggings is extremely sexually provocative. And yes, I did take sexual pleasure from those avuncular-seeming pats on the backside. But the young ladies never knew this. As far as they were concerned this was just a middle-aged man being friendly. So no offence or misdemeanour took place."
The legal definition of the offence you committed is as follows:
"Sexual touching is a complex offence and the resulting legal process can be difficult to navigate. In order for sexual assault by touching to be proved in court, the following four criteria must be demonstrable:
You have touched another person intentionally
The touching of that person was sexual in nature
The person touched did not consent to being touched by you
You did not reasonably believe that the other person consented
Section 79 (8) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 states that: Touching includes touching: (a) with any part of the body, (b) with anything else, (c) through anything. This means that skin-on-skin contact is not necessary to constitute sexual assault by touching; the part of the victim’s body may be fully clothed and the contact will still be the same under the law." Source: https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/what-is-a-sexual-touching-offence/
Your treatment of these unfortunate young women fits all four of the criteria -
you touched their bottoms intentionally,
the touch was sexual in nature [as your admission that you obtained sexual pleasure from touching them proves conclusively],
the young ladies did not consent to being touched
you had no reason to believe that they would have consented to being touched
which means that a charge of sexual touching would stick.
Your presumed defence, that the young women did not object, retaliate or complain at the time, so their consent could be assumed after the fact cannot be sustained. Any competent prosecutor would make the over-riding point that your professional seniority would have deterred them from complaint or retort - classic coercive behaviour in the workplace.
Likewise, your claim that no offence took place because your victims were unaware of your sexual motives is a legal nonsense. You might as well claim, if a victim is unaware of being swindled by an internet scammer when the scam takes place, that no crime has thus been committed.
At this distance of time, of course, there is no chance [or probably any point] in attempting to get your offence of sexual touching into court, despite your open confession above. All the same, I think it would be interesting to put all these facts in front of the senior management team at your old school to see if any of the women who were the subjects of your groping would be interested in furthering a professional complaint.
What do you think, Gene?
PS, don't waste time blustering about there being "no groping". Groping is a term with no validity in law anyway, but there is no doubt that you have convicted yourself, out of your own vast, slack, drunken and drivelling mouth, of repeated offences of sexual touching. One of the priests with whom I am working on the Welby/Cottrell/Hartley situation came round for a coffee and a chat this morning, and I showed her last night's exchanges on this blog. Before ordination she was a lawyer, and expressed astonishment at your stupidity in publishing your guilt. She also made the very interesting observation that, in doing so, you had displayed precisely that arrogance and disdain for the codes of ordinary decent behaviour that you have condemned so vehemently in Welby, Cottrell and others:
Delete"He evidently thinks that other people are there to be used by him as he chooses, and that rules are for other people to abide by. What a horrible man".
I have rarely if ever heard your character summed up so precisely and succinctly.
Any thoughts on our taking the matter to F---- M-------- et al for their adjudication?
"The touching of that person was sexual in nature..."
ReplyDeleteAnd which of those young (not so young now) women would attest that they were touched in a sexual way? They were completely unaware of any sexual intent.
Ergo non-starter in any criminal legal proceedings.
GENE
Gene, you are being deliberately obtuse.
DeleteYou have confessed, on several occasions on this blog, to the sexual touching of young women in school staffrooms.
You have affirmed that the touching was sexually motivated. What the young women thought was going on is a complete irrelevance - given that you have, in effect, already entered a plea of guilty as charged, their evidence would not be needed.
And in any case, no-one is talking about criminal legal proceedings.
Rather, as you have stated so emphatically with regard to Messrs Welby and Cottrell, there can be no question of a statute of limitations when it comes to sexual molestation. And although in this case there can be possibility of the criminal legal proceedings you mention, there is the open question of whether your conduct should be referred to the senior management of the school where you committed the offences to see if any of those whom you molested would like, even at this distance of time, to make a formal complaint about your behaviour. There is probably at least one such person who, given the chance to avenge your sweaty fingers twanging her knicker elastic, dislikes you enough to see you your GTC registration rescinded.
In the case of a retired person like you, this would be an otiose precaution. But for many people who, like me, think you are a complete shit, it would be great fun.
What do you think? Refer to your old school in the New Year? As you have pointed out, Welby and Cottrell knew about sexual misdemeanours committed by their priests and did nothing.
Surely you would not wish me, knowing what I know about your multiple offences of the sexual touching of junior colleagues, committed over a period of years, to do nothing also?
This lady friend of yours isn't much of a lawyer if she believes I could be convicted of a sexual offence where there is no complaint and no victim.
ReplyDeleteGENE
"You have confessed, on several occasions on this blog, to the sexual touching of young women in school staffrooms."
ReplyDeleteIN SCHOOL STAFFROOMS!!! Certainly not. Any backside-patting I did was out of the public eye - mostly in corridors or in classrooms when on one else was present.
GENE
Bless you Gene for being more than usually stupid. Thank you for adding this relevant detail to your testimony.
DeleteNot only did you commit the offence of sexual touching with the intention of obtaining sexual gratification, you took care to commit the offences unobserved - in empty corridors or classrooms. Apart from adding to the leering grubbiness of your behaviour, it proves that you knew that what you were doing was wrong - hence, your offences were committed with, as it were, malice aforethought.
Oh, my word, what a memorandum I am going to be able to send to F---- Mc------ et al!
Thank God for six pints of Carlsberg Special and a litre bottle of £3.99 Aldi El Taururina - it seems to have induced a mood of deranged arrogance in you whereby you can confess to anything and escape any consequences.
You do realise what you have confessed to, don't you. Gene?
Avoiding the point again Detterling. The point is that your friend must be a particularly stupid lawyer if the thinks I could be convicted of a sexual offence when there is no complaint and no victim.
ReplyDeleteGENE
"The point is that your friend must be a particularly stupid lawyer if the thinks I could be convicted of a sexual offence when there is no complaint and no victim."
ReplyDeleteShe never said that you could be convicted of a sexual offence, you stupid bugger - you didn't read the post properly. This is what it said:
"Before ordination she was a lawyer, and expressed astonishment at your stupidity in publishing your guilt. She also made the very interesting observation that, in doing so, you had displayed precisely that arrogance and disdain for the codes of ordinary decent behaviour that you have condemned so vehemently in Welby, Cottrell and others: "He evidently thinks that other people are there to be used by him as he chooses, and that rules are for other people to abide by. What a horrible man".
Show me where in that statement she says that you could be convicted of a sexual offence on the basis of your various confessions? You can't, because she doesn't, you stupid bugger.
Nor could you be convicted: and I have more to do with my time than to try to get a pointless case into court.
On the other hand, when the senior management team at your old school get my memorandum on the subject, complete with your verbatim testimony to your sexual touching offences, they will not dare ignore it, particularly as I will make it clear that if they do ignore it, then I shall refer the matter upward to Catherine Edgington, Head of Safeguarding in the Diocese of Westminster. This is view of the fact that it is almost certain that some of the women you groped will still be teaching, and will probably confirm that they were objects of your grubby attentions. No senior management team in its right senses would ignore such information - not least because it comes with the repeated confession of the perpetrator.
You can't worm and weasel your way out of this one, Gene: you have, in Samuel Pepys's classic phrase "shit in your hat and then clapped it on your head"... It will be fun.
I didn't say she had stated I could be convicted. I said that she would be very stupid if she thought so. Learn to read properly.
ReplyDeleteGENE
But she isn't at all stupid, so she never said anything of the kind.
ReplyDeleteChrist, how fucking juvenile you are.
And sooner or later you are going to have to face these facts:
On the other hand, when the senior management team at your old school get my memorandum on the subject, complete with your verbatim testimony to your sexual touching offences, they will not dare ignore it, particularly as I will make it clear that if they do ignore it, then I shall refer the matter upward to Catherine Edgington, Head of Safeguarding in the Diocese of Westminster. This is view of the fact that it is almost certain that some of the women you groped will still be teaching, and will probably confirm that they were objects of your grubby attentions. No senior management team in its right senses would ignore such information - not least because it comes with the repeated confession of the perpetrator.
You can't worm and weasel your way out of this one, Gene: you have, in Samuel Pepys's classic phrase "shit in your hat and then clapped it on your head"... It will be fun.
Tell me, are you still pissed from last night, or is this a fresh litre of Red Biddy?