On 8/20/2025 at 1:01 PM, CharlieH said:

I was sexually assaulted on a plane - now I'm fighting for compensation

 

It was September last year when 24-year-old Kelly was on a Qatar Airways flight from Doha to London Gatwick after a trip to Africa.

Tucked underneath a blanket and with her headphones firmly on, she quickly fell asleep after a strenuous day of travel. The quiet murmuring of voices from the film playing on her screen helped her to drift off on a packed overnight flight.

But two hours before landing, Kelly - whose name has been changed for this article - was woken by the man sitting next to her, sexually assaulting her.

The man in his 60s has now been jailed but Kelly is finding it difficult to go on with her day-to-day life and is locked in a battle for compensation.

 

• Man jailed for sexually assaulting woman on flight

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly6g2j67rko

Waking up to a mug like that, poor girl is going to have nightmares for life.  

13 minutes ago, jvs said:

 

 

The revised UCR definition of rape is: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Reading in the same topic that the man was convicted of penetration makes it rape by definition .

How ever different countries have different definitions and laws of course.

I was taught that any kind of penetration with any kind of object without consent is rape.

 

Well done for SPECTACULARLY missing the point, the UCR definition of rape is supremely irrelevant in this instance. This is not an American, the crime did not happen in America, the airline is not American. American codes, laws and definitions do not apply one way or the other. In this case English laws apply. And in England, guess what, there are SEPERATE offences for rape, on the one hand, and for assault by penetration, whkch includes fingering.

 

In England this is what applies:

 

"Rape

The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their penis in another person's vagina, anus or mouth, without the person's permission."

 

"Assault by penetration

Assault by penetration is when someone puts an object or any part of the body other than their penis (for example fingers) into another person's vagina or anus, without the person's permission."

 

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/what-are-rape-sexual-assault/

 

So total "fail" jvs, well done. The assailant here was not convicted of "rape". He was convicted of "assault by penetration", ie fingering.

12 minutes ago, TimBKK said:

Waking up to a mug like that, poor girl is going to have nightmares for life.  

The good thing they where not on their way to any of the Emirates states, she could been arrested for being molested

 

Anyway, she might had trauma in her life, and this just triggers old scars, and of course she should get help to have her traumas treated and her expenses covered. 

8 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well done for SPECTACULARLY missing the point, the UCR definition of rape is supremely irrelevant in this instance. This is not an American, the crime did not happen in America, the airline is not American. American codes, laws and definitions do not apply one way or the other. In this case English laws apply. And in England, guess what, there are SEPERATE offences for rape, on the one hand, and for assault by penetration, whkch includes fingering.

 

In England this is what applies:

 

"Rape

The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their penis in another person's vagina, anus or mouth, without the person's permission."

 

"Assault by penetration

Assault by penetration is when someone puts an object or any part of the body other than their penis (for example fingers) into another person's vagina or anus, without the person's permission."

 

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/what-are-rape-sexual-assault/

 

So total "fail" jvs, well done. The assailant here was not convicted of "rape". He was convicted of "assault by penetration", ie fingering.

Why you even bother? 

 

The good thing UK is not an emirate state where the consequences of being raped is real for women, 

 

Radha Stirling, founder and director of Detained in Dubai, said the UAE had a long history of penalising rape victims.

"We have been involved with several cases in the past where this has happened, and we work with the lawyers and families and have campaigned to change attitudes in the police and judiciary. 

"Recent cases... show that it is still not safe for victims to report these crimes to the police without the risk of suffering a double punishment".

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-38013351

I sense at least a couple of contributors here that could probably do with a proper fat-fingered arse poking under a blanket on an airplane and see how they feel about it. I hope they fly with Qatar.

 

Mehhh... on second thoughts, they'd probably ask the groper to go deeper.

31 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

Yes  I know that , 

He's already been found guilty of that crime .

NOW , She wants money (it says so in the thread title)

 

....and that's what's upsetting the sick incels......not that she was raped....but there's are an argument over compensation?????

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I sense at least a couple of contributors here that could probably do with a proper fat-fingered arse poking under a blanket on an airplane and see how they feel about it. I hope they fly with Qatar.

 

Mehhh... on second thoughts, they'd probably ask the groper to go deeper.

 

   Jezz. are you suggesting that some posters need to be anally raped ?

That is sickening thing to say 

44 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

As it should be, obviously. Women will end up having reserved areas on the flights. But then what will you do with men? As the number of fights between drunken males with increase. Maybe introduce total flight bans for any agressive behaviour. And that would include threats to parents travelling with young kids.

100% agree to banning kids from flights....... snotty germ ridden <deleted> can take a boat.

Multiple inflammatory posts and quoted replies have been removed

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

....and that's what's upsetting the sick incels......not that she was raped....but there's are an argument over compensation?????

 

   Yes, she wants a huge amount of money in return .

She does seem to be exaggerating the consequences hoping to get a higher payout .

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Yes, she wants a huge amount of money in return .

She does seem to be exaggerating the consequences hoping to get a higher payout .

 

That's exactly what she's doing. She was hoping for a massive cash payout from the taxpayer funded compensation scheme and is not getting a penny.

 

It's hilarious.

19 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

"Rape

The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their penis in another person's vagina, anus or mouth, without the person's permission."

Meaning what? That only a man can rape a woman and NOT vice versa?

And how does it apply to trannies?

48 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Na, what you want is no consequences for those who abuse and give the abused no or little possibilities to make sure there is consequences, even there is already little chance there will be consequences against abusers like this...

 

How does this work in the UK? When a victim is paid compensation out of a government fund, does the government subsequently reclaim this money from the perpetrator?

4 minutes ago, Puccini said:

 

How does this work in the UK? When a victim is paid compensation out of a government fund, does the government subsequently reclaim this money from the perpetrator?

 

Of course not. it's taxpayer funded. 

 

4 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Meaning what? That only a man can rape a woman and NOT vice versa?

And how does it apply to trannies?

 

That's  right, only men can be convicted of rape in England, it's a terrible injustice. But don't fear, parliament may implement changes that would allow women to be charged with rape:

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300270

 

30 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well done for SPECTACULARLY missing the point, the UCR definition of rape is supremely irrelevant in this instance. This is not an American, the crime did not happen in America, the airline is not American. American codes, laws and definitions do not apply one way or the other. In this case English laws apply. And in England, guess what, there are SEPERATE offences for rape, on the one hand, and for assault by penetration, whkch includes fingering.

 

In England this is what applies:

 

"Rape

The legal definition of rape is when someone puts their penis in another person's vagina, anus or mouth, without the person's permission."

 

"Assault by penetration

Assault by penetration is when someone puts an object or any part of the body other than their penis (for example fingers) into another person's vagina or anus, without the person's permission."

 

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/ro/report/rsa/alpha-v1/advice/rape-sexual-assault-and-other-sexual-offences/what-are-rape-sexual-assault/

 

So total "fail" jvs, well done. The assailant here was not convicted of "rape". He was convicted of "assault by penetration", ie fingering.

Like i said different countries,different definitions.

Enjoy your winning!

Makes what the guy did ok for you right?

Just another little thing,you keep saying the case is about her wanting money,then why the big interest by you in the definition of rape?

If i goof up ,ok i can admit a mistake,no big deal for me.

22 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I sense at least a couple of contributors here that could probably do with a proper fat-fingered arse poking under a blanket on an airplane and see how they feel about it. I hope they fly with Qatar.

 

Mehhh... on second thoughts, they'd probably ask the groper to go deeper.

It could make those long flights less boring and time go faster.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

Na, what you want is no consequences for those who abuse and give the abused no or little possibilities to make sure there is consequences, even there is already little chance there will be consequences against abusers like this...

 

@Hummin How does this work in the UK? When a victim is paid compensation out of a government fund, does the government subsequently reclaim this money from the perpetrator?

7 minutes ago, jvs said:

Like i said different countries,different definitions.

Enjoy your winning!

Makes what the guy did ok for you right?

Just another little thing,you keep saying the case is about her wanting money,then why the big interest by you in the definition of rape?

If i goof up ,ok i can admit a mistake,no big deal for me.

 

Well done for admitting  to being wrong publicly, never easy to do.

 

What is so appalling about this case is not that the perpetrator was convicted. The appalling thing here is that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was set up to compensate victims of crime who've suffered serious criminal injuries. Very obviously the intention here was to compensate people who suffered physical injuries, got shot, stabbed, or lost a limb in a criminal negligence factory incident.

 

However, this woman is trying to game the system by claiming her hand down the trousers incident was a "criminal injury", and thus have the taxpayer pay her out tens of thousands of pounds.

 

These types of frivolous attempts by gold diggers to game the system and abuse a criminal injuries compensation fund that is funded by the taxpayer should be made illegal. It is absolutely disgusting for this woman to complain she doesn't get a penny, of course she shouldn't get a penny.

 

It's outrageous she even tried to get a payout, given that she did not sustain any criminal injury of a physical nature that is in any way seirous.

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well done for admitting  to being wrong publicly, never easy to do.

 

What is so appalling about this case is not that the perpetrator was convicted. The appalling thing here is that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was set up to compensate victims of crime who've suffered serious criminal injuries. Very obviously the intention here was to compensate people who suffered physical injuries, got shot, stabbed, or lost a limb in a criminal negligence factory incident.

 

However, this woman is trying to game the system by claiming her hand down the trousers incident was a "criminal injury", and thus have the taxpayer pay her out tens of thousands of pounds.

 

These types of frivolous attempts by gold diggers to game the system and abuse a criminal injuries compensation fund that is funded by the taxpayer should be made illegal. It is absolutely disgusting for this woman to complain she doesn't get a penny, of course she shouldn't get a penny.

 

It's outrageous she even tried to get a payout, given that she did not sustain any criminal injury of a physical nature that is in any way seirous.

Why would admitting to have made a mistake be difficult?

It is easy for me to do,you make a mistake you admit to it and if i did some one wrong i ask for forgiveness.

Part of being raised right and being a man,you should try it!

Obviously you have never been (sexually) assaulted or raped.

It can do tremendous mental damage,some people never truly recover from it.

You seem to have more problems with the victim asking for compensation then with the guy who raped her.

(notice i am using the definition i was taught as a child)

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, jvs said:

Obviously you have never been (sexually) assaulted or raped.

 

Nor was this woman raped. She had a hand down her trousers. I think she'll live.

 

12 minutes ago, jvs said:

It can do tremendous mental damage,some people never truly recover from it.

 

Yes, that's what she says. Apparently it's worse than losing both your legs.

11 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Nor was this woman raped. She had a hand down her trousers. I think she'll live.

 

 

Yes, that's what she says. Apparently it's worse than losing both your legs.

You heard about mental health and triggers?

 

obviously you get triggered by women who have been assaulted who search for compensation to have resources to get a shrink to treat her back on track so she can continue to work and contribute by paying taxes, but I guess that’s a bit complicated line of thought where people get help for their traumas. 

 

Healthy societies help their people back on track, while dysfunctional societies suppresses them, and also blaim the victims 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Nor was this woman raped. She had a hand down her trousers. I think she'll live.

No wrong! He had a hand down her trousers!

You seem to be just fine with that!

I will leave it at this,people like you give me the creeps.

37 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Nor was this woman raped. She had a hand down her trousers. I think she'll live.

 

 

Yes, that's what she says. Apparently it's worse than losing both your legs.

Digital rape

14 minutes ago, jvs said:

No wrong! He had a hand down her trousers!

You seem to be just fine with that!

I will leave it at this,people like you give me the creeps.

He certainly is a piece of work,always negative about ladies. Comes across as a real winning grub.

1 hour ago, Cameroni said:

 

Of course not. it's taxpayer funded. 

 

 

That's  right, only men can be convicted of rape in England, it's a terrible injustice. But don't fear, parliament may implement changes that would allow women to be charged with rape:

 

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/300270

 

In UK, a woman can be convicted of other sexual offences against a man, eg without consent or penetration with an object other than a penis, like a finger or tongue, and so can face similar legal consequences.

10 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

In UK, a woman can be convicted of other sexual offences against a man, eg without consent or penetration with an object other than a penis, like a finger or tongue, and so can face similar legal consequences.

 

True enough, but in the spirit of equality if a woman with a strap-on jumps you she should really be charged with rape. 

 

It's just easier.

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

True enough, but it the spirit of equality if a woman with a strap-on jumps you she should really be charged with rape. 

 

It's just easier.

And a lezzie with a similar implement on another woman. 

9 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

You make it sound like you think it was all OK.

 

 

   No one is saying his actions were OK .

No one is defending his actions .

We are talking about her claims for compensation .

They are two different things .

His actions were horrendous, no one is saying they were not .

3 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

That's exactly what she's doing. She was hoping for a massive cash payout from the taxpayer funded compensation scheme and is not getting a penny.

 

It's hilarious.

Are there any instances, in your opinion, of any crime, where the victim(s) should be able to claim against this publicly funded scheme?

52 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

Are there any instances, in your opinion, of any crime, where the victim(s) should be able to claim against this publicly funded scheme?

 

Clearly when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme was set up in the 60s it was mean to compensate victims of violent crime only who sustained serious injujries. 

 

This is further evidenced by the same roof rule, which for over 5 decades prevented vicitms of domestic abuse to claim under this scheme, until a court ruling changed that in 2018.

 

It was not meant to compensate victims of sexual abuse, unless there was serious injury and it was a crime of violence. 

 

This scheme in the UK is one of the most generous in the world and has cost the UK taxpayer over 3 billion pounds.

 

Of course instances where parents have lost children, where victims of crime have sustained serious injury in a violent crime can give rise to  justifiable  claims.

 

As for a woman who's had a man put a hand down her trousers having the nerve to claim compensation from this scheme, this is absolutely disgusting and there should be penalties for this friviolous abuse of a government scheme to compensate victims of serious violent crimes. It's a fraud on the taxpayer really. Absolutely disgusting.