This really is the most tacky little story but I can't let it go (neither could he obviously) without comment. I swear I had to look up 'onanism'. It isn't a word I have ever come across. Oh sorry. This just gets worse.
A student masturbates in a Palmerston North K-mart changing room due to exam stress he says but the judge isn't buying it because of "a report that suggested the 24-year-old was sexually aroused by trying on new trousers."
What??? People can get sexually excited from trying on new trousers and he says he's stressed??? Spare a thought for me. I will never be able to look at changing rooms in the same light again. I think from now on I'll be coming home with clothes that don't fit.
It happened in the middle of the day on December 5, Sergeant Chris Whitmore told the hushed court.
The student went into the changing rooms with two pairs of trousers, pulled down his own trousers, sat on the floor of one of the rooms, and began his venture into onanism.
But there was a metre gap between door and floor and two people saw what he was doing.
Judge Ross said the defendant's offending was at the lower end of the scale.
People could see him, but he couldn't see them.
And so if he could see them but they couldn't see him it would have been at the worse end of the scale? How does that work?
And he didn't notice the metre gap??? Either the guys an exhibitionist or he got confused and thought he was at the sperm bank and people would approve.
Judge Ross said ... a conviction would be "out of all proportion" to the seriousness of the offence, especially with the defendant seeking a job at a district health board, he said.
Sakes alive. A job at the DHB? They need more w.....s?
Please pick me up off the floor. Oh shit. I mean pick him up off the floor. I'm down here for different reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So he was stressed and took the problem in hand. The young chap just has to learn that solitary vice is supposed to be solitary.
Brian Smaller
I always knew the judiciary had a soft spot for wankers!
I believe the judge's point was that since the young man couldn't see others (though they could see him) he may not have realized that others could see him. Thus it indicated he may not have been trying to exhibit his actions to others.
He should be glad he doesn't live in the US where that alone would mean he would have to register as a sex offender for life, his name and address would be publicized on the internet so any vigilante could find him, he would be unable to apply for many jobs and huge portions of the country would be off limits for him when it came to a place to live. Everytime he moved the police would plaster his new neighborhood with flyers with his picture and address telling everyone that a sex offender had moved in -- usually meaning harassment if not violence leading to him moving again so the police can do it all over again.
Post a Comment