Saturday, April 01, 2006

Man finds teenage girls attractive shock!

Via Pigdogfucker, this slightly creepy story.
A pensioner who stared at girls on their way to school in Edinburgh has been put on the sex offenders' register for three years.
...

The court heard how Wilkinson drove his car into the grounds of the Royal High School in Barnton and watched the girls.

I mean, in one way, you can see that the girls might be slightly alarmed, but surely it must have stretched even the Edinburgh magistrates to class this as a "breach of the peace"? Could one of the teachers not simply told him to leave and not come back under threat of calling the police? I mean, aren't you actually supposed to commit a crime before you end up in court?
Fiscal Malcolm Stewart told Sheriff Isabella McColl that Wilkinson admitted to the officers that he found the girls "sexually attractive".

Well, there is a surprise: "Man finds teenage girls attractive" shocker! Would anyone like another slice of hysterical over-reaction?

I think that this is a bit... well... off, isn't it? Essentially, this man has been convicted for a crime that he might possibly commit sometime in the future (if it was a simple breach of the peace, then why place him on the sex offenders' register? Did he do anything sexual?). How very Minority Report...

18 comments:

Katy Newton said...

There isn't anything weird about finding a girl attractive once she gets past puberty. The fact that he was driving into the school grounds to look at them is creepy and I think it does overstep the mark. But the way it's been dealt with sounds potty to me. I would have thought that the police could have started by warning him that the girls found his behaviour frightening and told him not to go back. If this had happened in England and Wales - I don't know if Scots law is different in this situation - then, if he had refused or gone back anyway, they might then have been able to charge him with harassment, which would have entitled them to a restraining order banning him from going to the school. That would have been a more practical approach than putting him on the sex offender's register.

Anonymous said...

Oh for goodness sake! When it suits you, you're cynical about every aspect of the "establishment" - and when it suits you you pretend to believe every word of a BBC story. Who needs judges and juries when you can rely on the media eh? How on earth do you know this guy didn't have previous offences? Or as Katy points out was breaching an order? Sometimes your desire to be controversial outweighs all common sense and while old men perving may have been normal at your school (teachers?), I'd certainly expect action if it was my daughter (if I had one that is)

Katy Newton said...

The BBC are usually pretty good when it comes to legal stories and it isn't unreasonable to rely on their reporting. I was basically agreeing with DK that on the face of it putting someone on the sex offenders register because they were looking at girls is a bit extreme. Someone else has now said that the bloke was masturbating, which would change my view somewhat if it were true, but I wasn't able to find a report about that and I'm surprised that the Beeb didn't mention it.

Anonymous said...

So now you believe the next report ? What if "someone else" got it wrong?

The BBC weren't necessarily wrong but as the old mantra goes, only the court hears the full facts of the case. And as the court is usually presided over by the very establishment DK holds dear, I find HIS readiness to suddenly believe a few paras from the bbc just a little sus!

Katy Newton said...

What I said was, "That would change my view if it were true". We form our opinions on the best information available at the time - we have to or we'd never feel able to express an opinion about anything. The main thing is to be prepared to reconsider your view when new information comes to light.

Anonymous said...

But that's NOT what you said in the comments section. You reacted to DK's post - then to the next info that came along! Without the court report none of us knows what happened so this whole thread is...wholly tedious?!

Katy Newton said...

I'm not following you. I'm not sure why, but I think it might be because you aren't making any sense.

MatGB said...

Yup, an anon attacking an opinion without either a) citing other evidence or b) providing an identiy.

Anon? Reveal yourself, or at least give something to back up views. If what was said in the Haloscan comments about him masturbating is true, then yes, he should sign offenders register.

But otherwise, your observation that "How on earth do you know this guy didn't have previous offences? " is irrelevent; if they were sexual, he should already be on the register.

Give us some evidence to back up whatever position it is you're trying to make? If oyu're not actually making a point, piss of and take the ad hominem elsewhere?

Katy Newton said...

Having a discussion with an anonymous commenter is a bit like trying to have a discussion with someone who insists on hiding behind a tree and throwing pebbles at you, or ringing the doorbell and then running away. I seem to remember DK saying that he was going to block them, but he must have changed his mind.

Anonymous said...

Asking for clarification of my point is fair enough but why turn it into an attack on me? I'm anon because of my work and the distinctiveness of my name. But if it makes a jot of difference, I live in Edinburgh and am in my 30s.

As for my point - my experience of the media, and I imagine I'm not alone, is that much of what's published is incomplete to the point of inaccuracy. The story in question provided very little info, leading DK to conclude the guy must have been convicted for doing not very much; me to conclude there must have been more to it and people shouldn't assume that judges/juries don't have more info to hand; Rosa, whoever she may be, to provide sourceless additional info; and Katy Newton to support DK and Rosa but not me because I'm anon.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone find it surprising that a man who regularly visited a girls school in his car went there for the purpose of masturbating? What other reason do you think he had for going there?

ed thomas said...

It's interesting Katy that you say it would change matters if the guy were to have been masturbating.

Why exactly? I'd still say it falls below the level of a crime unless he's following individuals while doing it (harrassment), or exposing himself (indecent exposure). Both of those crimes I'd recognise and support the law in prosecuting.

Anon does raise an interesting question about the lack of detail in the report. The old man seems to have been accused actually of 'breach of the peace'. I don't like the sound of this offence being applied to a man in a car staring.

However, it appears he parked his car at the school expressly for the purpose of ogling. The next question I would have: on public or on public land? But even were it the latter, I'd recognise circumstances in which a person, having been warned repeatedly they were causing disturbance, could have action taken against them. This does seem a good case of disturbance, but it doesn't seem as though he was warned.

I think the main issue I have with this, is that I think it shouldn't be news on the BBC at all. Some sad case has done something which most healthy males would never do, yet the BBC is making as if 'staring' were an offence. The effect of this is purely intimidatory. I really sense that Auntie is trying to put us off our totty. It would accord with her current sense of public duty.

ed thomas said...

Just responding to Beth, above-

I can definitely imagine a man going to a school like that just to look at the girls rather than to toy with the trouser snake. Some guys are sentimental about their voyeurism, I believe.

Anonymous said...

"Fiscal depute Malcolm Stewart told Sheriff Isabella McColl that Wilkinson admitted to officers that he "had been aroused".

That is what was reported in one of the local Edinburgh papers.

I still don't see what is so difficult about making the leap from accepting he went to the school because he found girls "attractive" and masturbating because he found girls attractive. Can you not see the link.

Andrew Field said...

Beth.

People aren't denying the link. Just it's assumed inevitability.

Man finds girls attractive... man masturbates. Yes.

Man finds girls attractive... man must masturbate. No.

For what it's worth I'm pretty much with Katy on this one. Regardless of what he was or wasn't doing, He should have been strictly warned about being in the area (and specifically if it is the case, on school grounds). If this failed he should have been told in no uncertain terms that if he remains they will call the police. If he still remains then put him on any kind of register you want.

However, as it stands it would appear that someone is cracking this voyueristic old walnut with the proverbial sledgehammer. And Anon, that is how it appears.

Anonymous said...

What do people think about the practice that the Police appear to have of arresting someone on one crime and then offering to let them off if they plead to a lesser one. The less serious offence still resulting in him being placed on the sex offenders register and in the case of a teacher or nurse affectively putting an end to his career where a CRB check is needed.

Some people may be intimidated into accepting a police caustion not wanting to risk a full investigation thinking that a police caution would be an end to it all.

Anonymous said...

They probably accept a caution thinking this will avoid the embarrassing publicity that a full investigation might bring. Do the police have a duty to advise people to get legal advice before accepting a caution, I wonder? If they don't, I think they should.

Devil's Kitchen said...

People aren't denying the link. Just it's assumed inevitability.

Man finds girls attractive... man masturbates. Yes.

Man finds girls attractive... man must masturbate. No.


Very nicely put, TJ.

The masturbation issue had occured to me; however, in that case one would expect a charge of gross indecency or something similar.

Anon, I am aware that only the court hears the whole story; however, one has to work with the material with which one is presented and, given the paranoia over "paedo's", it didn't seem entirely implausible.

And, as I have said before, if you want balanced, considered comment, you may possibly by reading the wrong blog...

DK

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...