I didn't actually find out if pissing is objectively sexual
You've got the touching and the lack of consent, its really just a question of whether the touching was sexual in nature.

Either way he's guilty of an offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, a less serious offence but with serious aggravating features; the abuse of trust, the age of the victim, the intention to humiliate and degrade and acting out of vengeance.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:15, 2 replies)

I'm pretty sure that pissing on a kid makes you a nonce.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:16, closed)

I'm almost certain that inside
they cut off your balls for pissing on a child.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:21, closed)

and the intention, don't forget the intention is clearly there, it can't be construed as a mistaken wee
I think there's some case or other giving precedent for touching of hair on head or cutting of hair on head of complainant as being sexual... I am sure you're right, dig through enough and there will be a nice A v B to back you up
( vladimir, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:25, closed)

Intention isn't in issue, this was a deliberate act.
I can't remember whether R -v- Heard (no relation to Mykeyboy) said that the intention was specifically sexual or whether any old touching would do.

I think you're getting the situation confused with Sir Igor Judge and Sir Peter Cresswell's baffling comments about haircutting and ABH.
( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:29, closed)

and I can't be arsed looking it up right now.

( WormuIus, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:30, closed)

This would be better if you were wearing your INTERNETLAWYERMAN costume.

( BraynDedd Natasha Kaplinsky's labia majora, Mon 7 Feb 2011, 23:33, closed)