Leeds Lad 17 Sexually Assaulted by Train Guard

[crewmeal]

And to cap it all he got away with it - 9 months suspended for 2 years? what a joke!!! Says it all about this Country - get away with anything unless you're a motorist.

Now this is punishment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ped-boy-11-shot-head-hundreds-spectators.html

 

[Metroland]

TRAIN conductor has been given a suspended jail sentence for sexually assaulting a passenger when they were alone in a carriage.
Ian Wilce was convicted of the offence last month and appeared yesterday at Leeds Crown Court for sentence.

The victim was a 17-year-old student who got on the 6.27am train from Leeds to Guiseley on January 16 after staying with friends following He was in a window seat when Wilce approached asking for his ticket, which he showed him.

David Gordon, prosecuting, told the jury Wilce walked away for a while but then sat down, first in front of and then next to the teenager, eventually assaulting him.

When train pulled into Guiseley Station, the teenager stood to get off but before opening the sliding door Wilce asked for his telephone number and the, youth anxious to get off the train, wrote it on his ticket.

The teenager immediately complained at the ticket office that the conductor had just "felt him up". Wilce tried to ring him three times in the next 20 minutes.

Wilce, 49, of Wheathead Lane, Keighley, denied he had touched the youth indecently.

Mark McKone, for Wilce, said he had already been suspended and was likely to lose the job he loved. That would also mean he would struggle to pay his regular outgoings, particularly his mortgage on the house he owned jointly with his wife.

Judge Sally Cahill told Wilce it was a serious offence since he had been in a position of authority as a train guard. "For the victim it must have been a terrifying and unpleasant experience."

She imposed a nine months prison sentence suspended for two years with 200 hours unpaid work and a six months curfew from 8pm to 7am. He must also register as a sex offender for 10 years.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Conductor-sentenced-for-train-sex.5447729.jp

 

[caughtonatrain]

And to cap it all he got away with it - 9 months suspended for 2 years? what a joke!!! Says it all about this Country - get away with anything unless you're a motorist.

Now this is punishment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ped-boy-11-shot-head-hundreds-spectators.html

Says what about this country? You don't really know the facts of the case. The judge decides on the basis of all known facts, not just those the newspaper chooses to report. IMO, based on what little I have read, 9 months suspended seems more appropriate than a bullet in the head, which is what you are suggesting. What planet are you on? I am not for a minute condoning what this guard did, but he is not, and will not be the last, repressed homosexual who tries something inappropriate on. When I was a student growing up I've been on the receiving end of that sort of thing, albeit not from someone in a position of authority. It's terrible and should not go unpunished if the victim is harmed, but it happens. It's not paedophilia and it's not the crime of the century.

 

[ukrob]

And to cap it all he got away with it - 9 months suspended for 2 years? what a joke!!! Says it all about this Country - get away with anything unless you're a motorist.

I didn't realise that community service, a curfew, loss of job and the general public knowing exactly what he has done was 'getting away with it'.

It is actually quite a solid sentence for 'feeling up' another adult, and there is no doubt in my mind that he is being made an example of to put others off.

 

[asylumxl]

You could give him a fake number. Why did he give him the real number? It just doesn't add up.

 

[Oswyntail]

And to cap it all he got away with it - 9 months suspended for 2 years? what a joke!!! Says it all about this Country - get away with anything unless you're a motorist.

Now this is punishment

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...ped-boy-11-shot-head-hundreds-spectators.html

Frankly, this sort of response is far more worrying than the incident as reported. A crime was committed - as said before, NOT paedophilia, but very unpleasant - and what in the eyes of many is an appropriate punishment was handed down. I admit some may think it too lenient, but, given the facts as reported, it seems fair. What we do not need is grotesque over-reaction, based on unthinkingly violent reactions. This may be appropriate in Yemeni culture (actually, many, even there, think not) but certainly not here. I note your location is in Jordan, so perhaps i have misunderstood your tone, and your complaint applies to that country.

 

[ukrob]

You could give him a fake number. Why did he give him the real number? It just doesn't add up.

Panic?

Of course it adds up.

 

[Oswyntail]

You could give him a fake number. Why did he give him the real number? It just doesn't add up.

In a stressful spur-of-the moment situation, people tend to give facts, and find making up new details very difficult. Most false names given share something in common with the real ones, initials, first names or the like. Under pressure it is quite likely that this is the only number he could actually think of!

 

[crewmeal]

Yes I live in Jordan and if anyone did that out here in the Middle East to someone under 18 then the courts would not be so lenient. I'll leave it to your imagination as to what might happen.

I enclosed that Daily Mail article with 'tongue in cheek' and I still feel that he got off lightly by interfering with a minor regardless of what you might think. I was also 'speaking' generally when it comes to crime in the UK. I still believe that the punishment does not fit the punishment in many cases of criminal activity in the UK. I could go on but this is not the right forum to debate such matters

 

[90019]

Now this is punishment

So, basically, you're condoning murder as a punishment, making you no better, actually, no, making you worse than him, by not only making a public spectacle of him, but by murdering him as well.
An interesting part of the article as well; "it is unclear if the barber had a fair trial", so what do you do if it turns out that he was innocent and had commited no crime? Then you have just committed plain murder. You have murdered a man with no valid cause for doing so.

Frankly, people who condone this sort of thing make me sick.
An eye for an eye is not a good tactic in the first place, but in some cases where the death penalty is applicable, it's more like a leg for a toe.
I wonder if you would feel the same way about capital punishment if you were wrongly accused of a crime and sentenced to death.

Thankfully, this sort of thing is unlikely to come back in the UK.

 

[crewmeal]

90019 - and what about the victim's families and friends of these murderers?

 

[90019]

90019 - and what about the victims of these murderers?

I never said they shouldn't be punished.
I said that you are no better than them if you think it's fine to murder them.

 

[ukrob]

90019 - and what about the victims of these murderers?

A victim of a murder is already dead. Killing someone as punishment who didn't have a fair trial is not an acceptable solution.

This is now wildly off topic.

 

[merlodlliw]

I agree well off topic, suppose I would have gone for the black eye treatment if I was touched,something about this case is very strange.

 

[theblackwatch]

What pedophile? We are talking here about people who are legally able to get married, not a young child.

 

[asylumxl]

What pedophile? We are talking here about people who are legally able to get married, not a young child.

Someone who could have also defended himself. That's what I find very strange about this case.

 

[Bittern]

What? Where are you getting that from? His age doesn't mean he can defend himself against something like this. I'm 17 and I doubt I'd be able to defend myself, I'd be too scared.

 

[ukrob]

Someone who could have also defended himself. That's what I find very strange about this case.

Yes, as you have mentioned three separate times now.

I didn't realise that ALL 17 year olds are able to defend themselves. At what age does that happen? Is it automatic on your 17th birthday? Surely it follows that everyone above 17 must be able to defend themselves? If so, why are people aged 17+ attacked every single day and not defending themselves?

What a load of rubbish.

 

[Demps]

Stop bickering about petty things lads.

 

[thelem]

Yes I live in Jordan and if anyone did that out here in the Middle East to someone under 18 then the courts would not be so lenient. I'll leave it to your imagination as to what might happen.

interfering with a minor regardless of what you might think.

The laws and standards of the country in question are very important. In England the age of consent is 16 and it is perfectly legal for a 49 year old male to have consensual sex with a 17 year old male. My understanding is that Jordan has a far less tolerant view on homosexuality.

From the information here, the problems seem to be that the act was probably not consensual (something which is very hard to determine, as one partner can genuinely think and act was consensual, while the other thinks they gave no indication of consent), and that even if consent was given the positions (mature figure of authority vs. young, drunk passenger) show an abuse of trust on the part of the guard.

 

[Bayum]

Stop bickering about petty things lads.

How is it petty??

A guy, not old enough to buy cigarettes and alcohol, was sexually abused by a train conductor, and some people are trying to show the point that even though he's 17 - it doesn't mean that he should be able to defend himself etc.

If it was someone you know, or dare I say it - your son or daughter - you would have a totally different take on the matter

 

[Chatty Guard]

It should be worth noting that the media often gets the wrong end of the stick and publishes an amazingly innacurate story of events. I'll show proof in a moment. For now though, colleagues of his who attended the trials state that on more than one occasion the '17 year old' didn't turn up to court and that at no time during any of the trials was sexual assault even mentioned.

Ian is a good guy, i'm not saying an assault didn't take place because there are some people out there getting on trains that REALLY make every effort to evoke a response from the guard. He probably lost his temper and lashed out and this kid has taken him for everything.

As for proof about the media making things up....

A friend of mine based at Middlesborough was flashed at and here are two completely different accounts from two different newspapers. One is true, the other is completely wrong...

Truth http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Rowdy-behaviour-on-train.5446532.jp

Lies http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-innocent-because-of-tattoo-on-his-willy.html

There's a lot of violence and abuse aimed at us these days and I know several guards that have been suspended or sacked because they were defending themselves.

 

[ukrob]

It should be worth noting that the media often gets the wrong end of the stick and publishes an amazingly innacurate story of events. I'll show proof in a moment. For now though, colleagues of his who attended the trials state that on more than one occasion the '17 year old' didn't turn up to court and that at no time during any of the trials was sexual assault even mentioned.

Ian is a good guy, i'm not saying an assault didn't take place because there are some people out there getting on trains that REALLY make every effort to evoke a response from the guard. He probably lost his temper and lashed out and this kid has taken him for everything.

As for proof about the media making things up....

A friend of mine based at Middlesborough was flashed at and here are two completely different accounts from two different newspapers. One is true, the other is completely wrong...

Truth http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/Rowdy-behaviour-on-train.5446532.jp

Lies http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...-innocent-because-of-tattoo-on-his-willy.html

There's a lot of violence and abuse aimed at us these days and I know several guards that have been suspended or sacked because they were defending themselves.

Those links are just different ways of reporting the same thing, and one of them is The Sun who spice things up unlike local media. It is the local media where this report first came from.

With respect I would rather believe the fact that he was found guilty by a jury than tales from friends of friends from the messroom which is what you are providing - " apparently the 17yo didn't turn up to court" etc.

 

[Bittern]

I agree. If the man was proven guilty in a court of law, that's good enough for me.

 

[asylumxl]

I agree. If the man was proven guilty in a court of law, that's good enough for me.

You're making a judgement based on a news article, a news article by the BBC at that, probably the worst source of journalism in the UK.

It's Jurys with mob mentalities that have falsely imprisoned people in the past. There is so much evidence we do not know, and this makes it unfair for us to judge this case.

We don't know anything apart from media spin, yet your immediate reaction is to take it all as fact, and to brand him guilty and insult him.

The jury's job is to make a impartial decision. based around the facts. When you let personal opinions, emotions, experiences and prejudices into the case, you should immediately remove yourself from the case.

I never said he didn't do it, I never even remotely implied it lessened the crime involved, I simply said that some parts of it seem strange to me.

If you do not like my opinion, please, just ignore my posts. I just choose not to be part of the mob.

 

[Bittern]

^From a guy who claims that because the guy was 17, he should've been able to defend himself.

You really didn't get what I said at all. We don't know what evidence was presented, but the courts do, and they obviously found him guilty.

 

[asylumxl]

^From a guy who claims that because the guy was 17, he should've been able to defend himself.

You really didn't get what I said at all. We don't know what evidence was presented, but the courts do, and they obviously found him guilty.

Why the need for the "^"? You're just showing your lack of maturity that way.

 

[Bittern]

...Wow. I was pointing to the post above. I fail to see how that shows "lack of maturity".

 

[asylumxl]

...Wow. I was pointing to the post above. I fail to see how that shows "lack of maturity".

Why the need for it? Why the need for the comment that goes with it?

 

[Bittern]

^I pointed to the post above because I wanted to. As for the comment, you were more-or-less saying that my view was illogical, I was pointing out the irony.

Someone who could have also defended himself. That's what I find very strange about this case.