Citings - So how long will Joe be on extended leave then?

[Oakboy]

We’ve wobbled off down some blind, tangential alleys in our time but this may be the most random of them all.

It's called boredom!

[p/d]

I think it has. When a nipper there used to be much jollity watching me mow a lawn in nothing more than safety goggles and a broad smile. Alas, nowadays, the lady down the road doesn't take too kindly to me tending her lawn similarly attired.

It's nothing to do with how you're dressed. You don't strim the edges or rake up the clippings, you lazy sod.

I’ll have you know I am meticulous about the edges, and always employ a stiff brush to remove any clippings that may reside on the pearl white path that leads to her now well presented bush

[Oakboy]

I think it has. When a nipper there used to be much jollity watching me mow a lawn in nothing more than safety goggles and a broad smile. Alas, nowadays, the lady down the road doesn't take too kindly to me tending her lawn similarly attired.

It's nothing to do with how you're dressed. You don't strim the edges or rake up the clippings, you lazy sod.

I’ll have you know I am meticulous about the edges, and always employ a stiff brush to remove any clippings that may reside on the pearl white path that leads to her now well presented bush

Do you believe in scarifying or fertilising?

[Banquo]

I'm setting out nothing in terms of what I'd like. I'm just saying if groping requires state intervention we're going to need to throw vastly more resources at the problem owing the normal behaviour of people, typically teens but some retain some very weird ideas even when growing older.

Which isn't to say teens don't need more teaching around boundaries, and yes much easier access to porn and even some very violent porn isn't going to help, far from it.

You seem to repeatedly miss the consent point. And the state are already 'intervening' on sexual assault by teenagers, as that is what groping without consent is (as well as other sexual assaults obviously). You are correct on context, but not so much pragmatism- once agencies are set in motion by say a safeguarding concern, it takes on a life of its own, with clear processes and protocols once a concern is even hinted at.

This probably has taken the thread irretrievably off topic, apols.

I'm not ignoring consent, I'm merely assuming things progress from eye contact to kissing to petting behaviour to... without each stage necessarily having prior consent. In an ideal world there always would be consent, but for now I'd take if someone makes an action that's too much for their partner(s) that a no be it physical or verbal is enough to halt proceedings. Maybe I'm wrong and specific consent is much more prevalent than I assume, in which case happy days, but I doubt it.

The % of state interventions next to what is very likely in practice the number of sexual assaults is tiny, technically speaking there are probably more assaults each day than the state looks at in a year, certainly if we're starting with the assumption that actions at the level of Marler's equate to sexual assault.

I'm just talking you through the reality of what is happening today. Young people- especially boys- are groping without consent, are being complained about, are being investigated, are being put on the registar, are being excluded from education and are being charged. You can choose not to believe me if you like. It may be a tiny percentage, but lives are being irrevocably changed because of ignorance and immaturity, neither of which are an excuse.

(I should have said this is nothing to do with the Marler piece).

[Digby]

You seem to repeatedly miss the consent point. And the state are already 'intervening' on sexual assault by teenagers, as that is what groping without consent is (as well as other sexual assaults obviously). You are correct on context, but not so much pragmatism- once agencies are set in motion by say a safeguarding concern, it takes on a life of its own, with clear processes and protocols once a concern is even hinted at.

This probably has taken the thread irretrievably off topic, apols.

I'm not ignoring consent, I'm merely assuming things progress from eye contact to kissing to petting behaviour to... without each stage necessarily having prior consent. In an ideal world there always would be consent, but for now I'd take if someone makes an action that's too much for their partner(s) that a no be it physical or verbal is enough to halt proceedings. Maybe I'm wrong and specific consent is much more prevalent than I assume, in which case happy days, but I doubt it.

The % of state interventions next to what is very likely in practice the number of sexual assaults is tiny, technically speaking there are probably more assaults each day than the state looks at in a year, certainly if we're starting with the assumption that actions at the level of Marler's equate to sexual assault.

I'm just talking you through the reality of what is happening today. Young people- especially boys- are groping without consent, are being complained about, are being investigated, are being put on the registar, are being excluded from education and are being charged. You can choose not to believe me if you like. It may be a tiny percentage, but lives are being irrevocably changed because of ignorance and immaturity, neither of which are an excuse.

(I should have said this is nothing to do with the Marler piece).

I do believe you people are being reported right now, I'm not contending otherwise. My comment is that the reported instances are (in my assumption) a tiny tip of the iceberg. And thus because it's such a small fraction it's unrealistic to think all such instances of groping are going to possibly attract the attention of the authorities

[Mikey Brown]

“You people”? Jesus. Are we bringing race in to this now?

This thread has so many twists and turns.

[Banquo]

I'm not ignoring consent, I'm merely assuming things progress from eye contact to kissing to petting behaviour to... without each stage necessarily having prior consent. In an ideal world there always would be consent, but for now I'd take if someone makes an action that's too much for their partner(s) that a no be it physical or verbal is enough to halt proceedings. Maybe I'm wrong and specific consent is much more prevalent than I assume, in which case happy days, but I doubt it.

The % of state interventions next to what is very likely in practice the number of sexual assaults is tiny, technically speaking there are probably more assaults each day than the state looks at in a year, certainly if we're starting with the assumption that actions at the level of Marler's equate to sexual assault.

I'm just talking you through the reality of what is happening today. Young people- especially boys- are groping without consent, are being complained about, are being investigated, are being put on the registar, are being excluded from education and are being charged. You can choose not to believe me if you like. It may be a tiny percentage, but lives are being irrevocably changed because of ignorance and immaturity, neither of which are an excuse.

(I should have said this is nothing to do with the Marler piece).

I do believe you people are being reported right now, I'm not contending otherwise. My comment is that the reported instances are (in my assumption) a tiny tip of the iceberg. And thus because it's such a small fraction it's unrealistic to think all such instances of groping are going to possibly attract the attention of the authorities

Ok. So I don't know whether you are trying to downplay groping as a sexual assault worth taking seriously or what?

[p/d]

I wonder if being a fluffer is still a viable job opportunity

[p/d]

It's nothing to do with how you're dressed. You don't strim the edges or rake up the clippings, you lazy sod.

I’ll have you know I am meticulous about the edges, and always employ a stiff brush to remove any clippings that may reside on the pearl white path that leads to her now well presented bush

Do you believe in scarifying or fertilising?

Definitely lean towards scarifying. Probably due to a period at school when I thought I was a hen teaching its young to forage.

I sometimes question my time spent at boarding school

[Banquo]

I wonder if being a fluffer is still a viable job opportunity

that's what they used to call the cleaners who worked overnight on the tube network, so yes!

[Digby]

I'm just talking you through the reality of what is happening today. Young people- especially boys- are groping without consent, are being complained about, are being investigated, are being put on the registar, are being excluded from education and are being charged. You can choose not to believe me if you like. It may be a tiny percentage, but lives are being irrevocably changed because of ignorance and immaturity, neither of which are an excuse.

(I should have said this is nothing to do with the Marler piece).

I do believe you people are being reported right now, I'm not contending otherwise. My comment is that the reported instances are (in my assumption) a tiny tip of the iceberg. And thus because it's such a small fraction it's unrealistic to think all such instances of groping are going to possibly attract the attention of the authorities

Ok. So I don't know whether you are trying to downplay groping as a sexual assault worth taking seriously or what?

This started for me with Paddy saying those groping should expect to face the law, and my thoughts on that are surely only a tiny % of gropings result in the law being contacted never mind action being taken. So it seems an overblown statement to say all gropings should expect to face the law

Whether groping can be equated to assault is going to vary person to person. For me Marler's actions are unwelcome and stupid, but not at a level I'd want to see the law involved, and whilst I understand the entry point for the ban is 12 weeks I'd rather the game actually take a few other things more seriously. I mean, was Cros ever banned for tipping that Scottish player onto his head?

[Mr Mwenda]

Why did Marler decide to touch an opponent's genitals and why AWJ's in particular? He was a total prat to be seen doing it on camera and, to my eyes, that degree of stupidity remains his greater offence. However, was there some historical by-play between the two men to make the gesture (and the touch was so light that it was only a gesture) relevant? I suspect that it was something along the lines of AWJ having maintained that he'd still chin someone who groped him whatever the current laws and Marler was daft enough to put it to the test. Whatever, it was an act of idiocy, punished correctly. The length of sentence is probably about right in order to discourage others.

Does then the lack of a punch mean there was consent?

[Banquo]

I do believe you people are being reported right now, I'm not contending otherwise. My comment is that the reported instances are (in my assumption) a tiny tip of the iceberg. And thus because it's such a small fraction it's unrealistic to think all such instances of groping are going to possibly attract the attention of the authorities

Ok. So I don't know whether you are trying to downplay groping as a sexual assault worth taking seriously or what?

This started for me with Paddy saying those groping should expect to face the law, and my thoughts on that are surely only a tiny % of gropings result in the law being contacted never mind action being taken. So it seems an overblown statement to say all gropings should expect to face the law

Whether groping can be equated to assault is going to vary person to person. For me Marler's actions are unwelcome and stupid, but not at a level I'd want to see the law involved, and whilst I understand the entry point for the ban is 12 weeks I'd rather the game actually take a few other things more seriously. I mean, was Cros ever banned for tipping that Scottish player onto his head?

Cool- I was trying not to conflate with the Marler piece, because it was clearly not a sexual assault. The point I wasn't sure you'd got, was that non-consensual 'groping' can and does have very serious consequences- but had got it, so shut up me.

[Oakboy]

Why did Marler decide to touch an opponent's genitals and why AWJ's in particular? He was a total prat to be seen doing it on camera and, to my eyes, that degree of stupidity remains his greater offence. However, was there some historical by-play between the two men to make the gesture (and the touch was so light that it was only a gesture) relevant? I suspect that it was something along the lines of AWJ having maintained that he'd still chin someone who groped him whatever the current laws and Marler was daft enough to put it to the test. Whatever, it was an act of idiocy, punished correctly. The length of sentence is probably about right in order to discourage others.

Does then the lack of a punch mean there was consent?

Hadn't thought of that. Based on AWJ's post-match interviews, probably not.

[Digby]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-unio ... 56o9o.html

More quality work from a citing panel. Joe Marler got 10 weeks for a fondle, but Charlie Rorke gets 2 weeks for a much more determined grab


Edit - If it's not obvious it's Pink 6 who grabs Canary Yellow 14 in the nether region, perhaps upset he's wearing his national colours, and Canary Yellow 14 responds to his balls being grabbed with a punch. Canary Yellow 14, Leonardo Sarto got a 1 week ban for his punch, so a flimsy retaliatory punch is worth 50% of a decent attempt at to go with the SMH squirrel grabbing. Whether any of this comes down to Rorke having a well known father in rugby or it's just independent madness I don't know