fair enough, I did freely point out that my source wasn't the most reliable. At least it got the nature of the offence right, which is clearly in an entirely different league to having a crafty slash in a pool. If it's assault, and not a sexual offence, why bring up Section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act at all?

Throwing shit at someone would not be a better example, as throwing anything at another person is clearly assault (and a remarkably unpleasant one, in this instance). Urinating into a shared body of water and having it subsequently come into contact with someone else is substantially different from directing a jet of hot piss square into their face. Hence the farting analogy; both include bodily effluvia being released into the immediate enviroment, and subsequently being transported by the surrounding medium and coming into contact with others. So one's gas, one's liquid - that's only really a matter of temperature, anyhow.

I dare say a few of my turds have ended up in the ocean, in some form or another (not deposited directly, I hasten to add). Possibly, some people have swum in/near their watery remnants. If one believes in homeopathy, I've potentially doused a significant portion of the planet with highly diluted, and therefore extremely potent, poo-water. I honestly don't feel like I've done anything terribly wrong, but numberswise, this probably makes me worse than H...

...ah, no, Godwin ain't getting me.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 13:21, 1 reply)

My intial thoughts were I can push for Section 3 with this.
Then I had a few doubts because I couldn't tell if the act is objectively sexual or not.
I've slept on it now and whilst the law is not completely clear, I think you could sustain a charge of Sexual Assault here, particularly given the insufficiency of sentencing available if a lesser offence were substituted.

If I were Defending this, my argument would be that the act was not objectively sexual and therefore needed a sexual motive, however, I think a court might well consider this objectively sexual.

A teacher, deliberately urinating on a child is pretty serious offending and I think Section 3 is appropriate.

My early example of 'showering someone with shit' was someone excreting on someone else, not throwing something, although this is totally irrelevant and both would count.

The only difference between urinating directly onto someone and urinating into water so that it touched them is that in one scenario the other person is aware of it, in our example the offending is if anything, more serious.

As for your turds ending up in the ocean, this is a question of intention. If you went to Blackpool and shat in the water next to a child you too would be guilty of the same offence.

Similarly, farting deliberately on someone is an assault, again the question is one of whether at law farting on someone is objectively sexual, I suspect that a court would almost certainly hold that it wasn't, I think we would all agree that farting is a different thing to urinating, is conducted in different places, has a different impact sociologically if used as the basis of an assault etc.

In conclusion, sorry to confuse you, I was flipflopping because the law isn't clear, but I'm now pushing for Section 3.
( WormuIus, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 15:54, closed)

This has shades of Speckled Jim...

Perhaps I've had a sheltered upbringing, but I don't see such a strong link between urination and sexual gratification. Certainly, I hope the OP didn't go home and rub himself raw over the encounter...

It would certainly be an interesting test case, given the amount of people who, when surveyed, admit to pissing in the pool. As we're handing out charges of sexual assault to kids as young as ten, I fear we may need more prisons. Then again, as the supposed victim was entirely ignorant of the attack, there were no witnesses, and there would be no evidence whatsoever to offer in pursuit of a conviction, perhaps our OP, with his community-spirited warming of public waters, would be OK.

Anyway, you'll be needing your hat:


( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 17:04, closed)

No! There was nothing sexual about this! I am not a paedo!
I appreciate that people are trying to wind me up, but I am starting to get slightly frightened of being nonce-bashed. Thank you all of you.
(jimmy spankhands, Tue 8 Feb 2011, 17:21, closed)

pissing in the pool is different to deliberately pissing on a child in a pool
the most upsetting thing in this example is as I said before, the abuse of trust.

As for evidence, confessions are pretty good.
( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:56, closed)

You seem to be operating under the assumption that he's a teacher, rather than a lifeguard. When I was a lifeguard, I was never given to understand that I was acting in loco parentis; I was merely there to stop the little fuckers from sinking. Admittedly, this did not lead to me pissing on any obnoxious teens - and indeed, if it had, I like to think I'd have done so with a little more panache. Preferably from a diving board.

I digress. If we're drawing distinction between 'pissing on', implying a direct jet, and 'pissing near', with the payloaad carried by the surrounding water - I'm going to go with the former being technically impossible. Presuming he didn't flop out his tackle, the stream would first have had to contend first with a cold-shrivelled weener, possibly bent into a non-optimal weeing configuration, then the material of whatever form of swimming-short he was sporting (which are frequently dual-layered, featuring integrated pants), and lastly, the drag of the surrounding water. Now, I'm no expert on flow dynamics, but I'm guessing that by this point, 'pissing on' has become more or less impossible, the jet having turned into a gently-expanding cloud. I would hazard that 'pissing on' doesn't extend past the inner pant layer. So unless the kid was indulging in Neroesque aquatic dong-nilbbling, which has not thus far been mentioned, the only likely outcome is 'pissing near'.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 18:50, closed)

Yes, basically I wet myself in a lake
and I wanted to be controversial and shocking.

I must say I'm amazed at the amount of time and thought put into some of these replies - clearly B3tans don't do much work. Or, I'm going to receive a large legal bill for all the advice on here.
(jimmy spankhands, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 21:18, closed)

Either way, he's guilty of the attempt.

( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 23:19, closed)

also, to clarify, gratification has nothing to do with it.
If I rubbed my cock on you it could be for a whole range of reasons, some potentially non-sexual (it was itching and I wanted to scratch it on your beard, for example), however, because of the nature of the assault itself it is automatically sexual as the standard is objective rather than my subjective intention.

The issue here is whether a court would hold that a man urinating on someone is inherently sexual and the sort of action designed to be prevented by the Sexual Offences Act.
( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 13:59, closed)

Also, I'm opposed to the re-introduction of the death penalty.

( WormuIus, Wed 9 Feb 2011, 14:00, closed)