BBC Source

 

 

 

A man has been banned from talking to women for five years after committing a number of indecent assaults.

 

 

 

Paul Jennings, 23, pedalled up behind and grabbed the bottoms of five women jogging, cycling or walking in a park.

 

 

 

He would brake when confronted by an angry victim, hurl verbal abuse, blow them a kiss and pedal off.

 

 

 

The father-of-two from Swindon is forbidden from approaching any woman he does not know in the open air, unless for legitimate reasons.

 

 

 

Karate chop

 

 

 

At Swindon Crown Court, Judge Douglas Field handed Jennings the five-year order, a three-year community order and told him to attend a sex offenders programme.

 

 

 

The court heard Jennings cycled to Coate Water Country Park on the evening of 17 April.

 

 

 

Claire Marlow, prosecuting, said his first victim was out jogging when Jennings cycled up and grabbed her from behind.

 

 

 

Minutes later a 28-year-old jogging with a friend was grabbed between the legs. Jennings again stopped in front of her and winked before riding off.

 

 

 

A 36-year-old pushing her bike up a hill was grabbed in a similar way, and Jennings shouted, before grabbing a 40-year-old jogger's bottom.

 

 

 

His final victim, a 44-year-old woman was standing by the park entrance when he grabbed her between the legs.

 

 

 

He then let go when she karate chopped him on the arm. When arrested Jennings told police he had made a mess of his life.

 

 

 

Now, it's right he was punished for what he did, it was totally unacceptable. But does anyone else see the punishment as impractical, archaic and, in all honesty, very, very funny?

EDIT: Aww nevermind, he can't approach ladies he doesn't know. :(

 

 

 

Poor bloke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty stupid though, how does the police track him down?

Not impractical, serves him right. Squeezing someone's butt is one thing - but squeezing them between their legs? That's just wrong. Not to mention he did it 3-4 times. 5 Years is rather severe though, maybe two at most.

Not impractical, serves him right.

 

 

 

But it is impractical. How can you just stop a person from speaking to the opposite gender unless you are watching them 24/7? It would of been better to just throw him in jail for 6 months or a year or something.

Not impractical, serves him right.

 

 

 

But it is impractical. How can you just stop a person from speaking to the opposite gender unless you are watching them 24/7? It would of been better to just throw him in jail for 6 months or a year or something.

 

 

 

Oh aye. I didn't know that's what Bubsa meant by 'impractical'. I thought he meant like 'It doesn't work'. But yeah, it would be impossible to watch him everyday all day.

Not impractical, serves him right.

 

 

 

But it is impractical. How can you just stop a person from speaking to the opposite gender unless you are watching them 24/7? It would of been better to just throw him in jail for 6 months or a year or something.

 

 

 

yeah...I was about to say... :uhh:

 

 

 

Kinda weird..but it makes sense

 

Poor guy :P

Well, its a creative consesquence, thats for sure.

Not impractical, serves him right.

 

 

 

But it is impractical. How can you just stop a person from speaking to the opposite gender unless you are watching them 24/7? It would of been better to just throw him in jail for 6 months or a year or something.

 

 

 

Oh aye. I didn't know that's what Bubsa meant by 'impractical'. I thought he meant like 'It doesn't work'. But yeah, it would be impossible to watch him everyday all day.

 

 

 

Yeah, it 'doesn't work' in the sense that how can you possibly have surveillance on him all the time? I see what you mean about the punishment being fitting for the crime, but the mind boggles somewhat.

Whats really sad is that the article said he already has two kids...

The punishment fits the crime. This man obviously has no respect for women, and no benefit will come of him coming into contact with them. Whether or not it is possible to enforce is irrelevant.

Whether or not it is possible to enforce is irrelevant.

 

Well, I think it is quite relevant. What's the point of giving a punishment that can't be enforced? If it isn't enforced, the man would practically escape without punishment.

Whether or not it is possible to enforce is irrelevant.

 

Well, I think it is quite relevant. What's the point of giving a punishment that can't be enforced? If it isn't enforced, the man would practically escape without punishment.

 

Lol yeah. Bit of a silly point there insane.

i think it's more of, if he gets another complaint against him, then he goes to jail, type of punishment

Whether or not it is possible to enforce is irrelevant.

 

Well, I think it is quite relevant. What's the point of giving a punishment that can't be enforced? If it isn't enforced, the man would practically escape without punishment.

 

Lol yeah. Bit of a silly point there insane.

 

 

 

He is being thrown into a sex offender's program. The restriction on talking to women is in addition to that. He is being punished.

That's hilarious, poor guy.

 

But they do have sound reasons for this, he may get confident and actually rape someone.

 

But I'm a bit lost on how they are gonna enforce the fact he's not allowed to talk to women for 5 years. The sex offenders program, sure, but that is just impossible to enforce, unless they have an agent constantly tailing him. :-k

Whether or not it is possible to enforce is irrelevant.

 

Well, I think it is quite relevant. What's the point of giving a punishment that can't be enforced? If it isn't enforced, the man would practically escape without punishment.

 

Lol yeah. Bit of a silly point there insane.

 

 

 

He is being thrown into a sex offender's program. The restriction on talking to women is in addition to that. He is being punished.

 

I wouldn't consider the restriction of talking to women a punishment since it can't be enforced very well but you are right about the program. Though, is just a program and some silly restriction that is hard to enforce enough?

I'm not sure if I agree with the whole punishment. Who walks up to random women and talks to them anyway? Coupled with the fact that the punishment can't be reliably enforced, it just seems like "don't do it again" verbal scolding.

 

But the sex offenders programme would be pretty embarrassing, and will get the message into his head.

Whether or not it is possible to enforce is irrelevant.

 

Well, I think it is quite relevant. What's the point of giving a punishment that can't be enforced? If it isn't enforced, the man would practically escape without punishment.

 

Lol yeah. Bit of a silly point there insane.

 

 

 

He is being thrown into a sex offender's program. The restriction on talking to women is in addition to that. He is being punished.

 

I wouldn't consider the restriction of talking to women a punishment since it can't be enforced very well but you are right about the program. Though, is just a program and some silly restriction that is hard to enforce enough?

 

 

 

It's hard to judge, it's a fairly petty crime. Although the crime comes from a disgusting inner view of women, the outer actions weren't incredibly serious.

When arrested Jennings told police he had made a mess of his life.

 

Haha I love that. He just gives that as a reasonn for doing it. Hehe.

What do they define as legitimate reasons?

 

 

 

"Meeting new people" could be seen as a legitimate reason for him.

 

 

 

And certainly, since it's limited to open-air interactions, there's nothing stopping him from having a gander and a squeeze in the lift.

 

It's hard to judge, it's a fairly petty crime. Although the crime comes from a disgusting inner view of women, the outer actions weren't incredibly serious.

 

 

 

You are right. Clearly, the bowels and intestines of women are not pleasant to look at.

Sexual harassment...so he should be registered as a sex offender..

 

and be imprisoned for some time..

 

 

 

but honestly..what are people coming to...this world is a mess.

What if it's still possible for this person to have a perfectly normal and loving relationship? Would it be deemed unnacceptable contact then as well?

 

 

 

And above all else, no contact with women for five years? It seems a bit... stupid if you ask me.

 

 

 

I'm with Zonorhc - define "legitimate".

Yes, I find it very funny. However, a 1 year jail sentence would be less unusual, and probably much more practical. And he should be marked as a sex offender.

If I got a punishment dissalowing me to talk to women? \ :thumbsup: :thumbsup: \ =D>

 

 

 

Haha, in all seriouslness, that is the single most stupidest punishment I have ever seen.

 

 

 

And certainly, since it's limited to open-air interactions, there's nothing stopping him from having a gander and a squeeze in the lift.

 

Lol, it'd still be illegal.

 

 

 

Off-Topic though, does anyone know how that law suit by the judge against the dry cleaning company is coming along?