Well it seems as if the lunatics really have taken over the asylum, in the British court system. (It certainly could not be called a “justice” system, after the most recent crazy decision).
Duarte Xavier was just sentenced to 15 years in jail by Judge Michael Hunter, in the Kingston Crown Court, in England. He had used several online and smartphone based dating Apps (including but not limited to Tinder).
He posted a picture of a pretty girl and subsequently arranged several meet-ups. Some dates we are told took place in his flat, and some at a local park.
He asked the men who were meeting with him to wear a blindfold and they all agreed. (The article does NOT make it clear exactly how this was done. ie did the men just wander around a park at random, staggering around already wearing a blindfold ? Did they go right up to the door of the apartment/flat and then affix a blindfold before knocking ? We do not know, no such details are given.
The dates apparently proceeded, as internet dates often do, and subsequently they engaged in some form of sexual activity.
Now it’s never made clear exactly what form the sexual activity, or even the date itself took. Because incredible though it may seem, none of the 4 male “victims” ever spoke with the Duarte Xavier (or they would have heard his voice), nor did they kiss him, or caress or hug with him… otherwise they would have noticed that instead of the pretty, long haired woman in the online dating profile, their date was with a bald dude with a full beard and sideburns.
It’s true that his beard was not quite as large as an Amish elder’s, or Santa Claus’s, but he’s still sporting a full beard.
The “offending” only came to light when some of the men chose to remove the blindfold while the sex act was taking place, or just afterwards. It was then they discovered that Duarte didn’t look much like the photo in the online dating app and decided to press charges. (That is why Duarte Xavier was arrested then released on bail several times, during which intervening periods, he engaged in more dates with more men).
Now there is no denying that Duarte Xavier is a bit of a scumbag and violated the terms and conditions of online dating apps by uploading photos that were NOT himself.
But I fear the court proceedings have taken a decidedly wrong path.
“… Xavier, of Wandsworth, south-west London, was found guilty of six counts of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent in October following a trial. …”
Well I certainly hope that, scumbag that he is, he appeals this and gets completely a new verdict of not guilty on all charges.
Let us be very very clear. The sexual activity was 100% consenting, and the 4 men involved (referred to as “heterosexual” males now claiming PTSD, and probably seeking state funded compensation payouts I daresay) consented willingly to being blindfolded, before, and during their sexual encounters. And it no time did they conduct any reasonable “due diligence” test on their dating partner. There was no kissing, no hugging or caressing, no listening to “her” voice. For farck sake alive, they didn’t even bother taking off the blindfold to SEE what “she” looked like, before commencing to engage in sexual activity.
So just what on Earth did their dates actually consist of ?
There are no details given regarding what the “sexual activity” actually was, so the public at large will just have to guess, I guess. This factor alone seems to be leaving the public record wanting, so for the benefit of historians looking back in decades to come when social situations may be quite different, I will suggest that it was probably NOT just toe-sucking and painting ancient Greek love poems on a partner’s bare back, but more likely the activity described as Fellatio. However we can only guess. (Perhaps it was something involving whipped cream and a banana ?)
However the facts remain that 4 men, who claim to be heterosexual, would happily meet and have a sexual experience with someone they have never seen, and wouldn’t notice their sex-partner at the time was a bald man with a beard.
Perhaps these were married men who decided to have homosexual affairs and then later were worried their wives would find out, so had to come up with a good “cover story” ?
Note that just a few years ago in Britain a similar case happened in reverse, involving a young woman, college student Gayle Newland.
Gayle Newland made online contact with another college student, using a dating profile claiming to be a man. They arranged that they would meet and because “he” had some scars from previous burns and operations, “he” had to wear special bandages. The “victim” agreed to voluntarily wear a blindfold during the entire encounter (including before they ever met for the first time). They had many encounters over about 18 months including going for out for drives in the car together and “watching” movies, all while the alleged victim, consented to remain blindfolded. (The article does NOT make it clear, but it seems fair to assume that Gayle Newland was the person driving, and that she was NOT wearing a blindfold at the time.
It seems to me that this whole story just doesn’t pass the “smell test”. It is bull-shit on so many levels.
They engaged in many “dates” over an 18 month period, some including penetrative sex (indeed they met up numerous times, totalling over 100 hours together in all). On every occasion the “victim” agreed to wear a blindfold and have only limited contact with the other person. They were never “forced” to wear a blindfold. There was no gun, no knife. One person simply asked the other person, in advance of the date (words to the effect of) “If we are going to meet on a date then I want you to wear a blindfold” and the other person said “yes, that’s ok”. (Well, if that’s not *consent*, what the bloody hell is ?)
It’s claimed some kind of artificial sex-toy penis-substitute was used, and the victim (despite being “sexually experienced” with men peviously) never noticed she was having sexual activity with another woman (and NOT the man as depicted in the online dating profile photo).
After being in this “relationship” of occasional dates over an 18 month period, one day the woman simply removed her blindfold (an option that had been available to her at any time previously, including right from the very first time they met).
Suddenly she realised she was having sex with a woman and got all upset and called the coppers, crying “rape”. Bull phukking shit, I say. Bull phukking shit.
In that case the female “perpetrator” also got a prison sentence of 8 years. This was overturned on appeal and a new trial ordered. Gayle Newland was again found guilty by a jury (a jury comprised of mentally defective dog-turds, apparently).
While not condoning the activities of Duarte Xavier or Gayle Newland, it is worth noting that all 5 “victims”, in both cases mentioned above, VOLUNTARILY wore blindfolds and could have removed them at any time, should they have chosen to, including at the beginning of the very first “date” when they first met.
I hope that Duarte Xavier lodges an appeal and gets found NOT GUILTY of all offences at a re-trial. Yes he’s a bit of a scumbag and should have his Tinder and online dating profiles cancelled for breaching the terms of use of those websites, but he certainly doesn’t deserve 15 years in jail, just because his date partners CHOSE to wear blindfolds !
Let – us – get – one – thing – perfectly – clear – In the 2 separate cases detailed above, All 4 men, and 1 woman, the so-called “victims”, consented to have sex, but made a FREE CHOICE to NOT LOOK at their sex-partner beforehand. So what if later they didn’t 100% match their online dating profile picture, then whoopy-doo. Be a bit of a grown up about it. Pissy cry-babies the lot of them. Court cases like those against Duarte Xavier and Gayle Newland, de-value what genuine victims of real sexual assault and rape go through.
Ultimately, Gayle Newland got her sentence reduced to 6 years in jail, after being found guilty at a second trial. She was also sentenced to a further 6 months in jail for unrelated fraud charges, relating to over-billing a previous employer on some contract work. Note that Gayle had been previously employed to deliberately post dubious materials online. (although as that employer’s normal job was being engaged in shonky, barely legal , online falsification practices themselves, it seems to me the employer was guilty of offences as well. Perhaps the court decision got it wrong on that count as well ?).
Here is a link to the NZherald’s newspaper’s website, citing a Daily Mail (UK) article by Richard Spillett, regarding the Duarte Xavier case. and below that the case of Gayle Newland. Also a link to me presenting this ‘blog entry on video.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz//lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=12157894&ref=clavis
Southern Isles Reporter 