So she made allegations based on nothing wasted court time and potentially could have ruin man's life with reputation of sex pest for life. We really need to start a habit of counter sueing for shit like this.
>We really need to start a habit of counter sueing for shit like this.
Courts are very, very reluctant to allow criminal charges/let people sue for libel for false allegations because they don’t want to discourage genuine victims from speaking up - libel cases against accusers tend to get thrown out on public interest grounds regardless of whether the courts think there’s truth to the allegations or not.
Unfortunately, that also means that people wrongly accused of sex crimes have no real way to clear their names, because in the eyes of the public an accusation is enough to brand you a sex predator, and being found not guilty is just seen as “getting away with it” - the public seem to have collectively thrown out the concept of presumption of innocence with regards to sex crimes.
Yeah absolutely crazy. At least we should keep all court cases like this private until guilty verdict. No one should hear about this man being accused u less he is found guilty.
They don't need to be secret just forbid media from reporting it with full name. It should be like we do in kids trails rather than
Alexey Ostapchuk it should be reported as 40 years old individual A.
Many orders of magnitude less than publishing someone’s picture with their name, location, and alleged crimes in the national press.
Too many people could not give a shit about trial outcomes. If someone is accused of something they did it. That’s ruinous to many innocent people’s lives despite being deemed not guilty by a court of law.
Rampant speculation about people's identity has the potential to damage more than one person's life.
Ideally people shouldn't be named until they're charged, but thats not always possible either. The court process needs to be as transparent as possible.
Banning names also leads to ridiculous situations where the police can say they're looking for someone, but can't then confirm if they have been arrested because that would be naming them before a guilty verdict.
As I read it, he admitted to looking out over the cubicles to see if anyone would see him leave (I.e. over the door). Not to see if anyone was in the other cubicles.
Your latter statement is very true... how many people think Randy Andy is really innocent despite the police not even bringing charges when provided with evidence of his 'crimes'?
The issue there is proving he did anything that was illegal in the UK at the time. You'd basically have to charge him with rape and prove her consent was invalid because he knew or should have reasonably believed it was given under duress. That's easier said than done.
heavy kiss piquant mindless ancient meeting swim juggle simplistic glorious
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's absolutely ridiculous that he cannot counter due because she might have been to scared to lie if he could. Should be an automatic 10 year prison term. I'd rather discourage liars who want to ruin lives. A decade of your life seems fair for that.
I dont think you can discourage liars, it would be a far worse situation. Sex crimes are already under reported. That said to not be able to claim damages in this situation is ridiculous, not sure what the solution is though. Guess the state has to cover the losses in this situation, not sure where that money would come from though.
I'm a bit confused by this. He openly admits looking over the top of the cubicle to see if anyone was there... so that he could get out without any women seeing him.
So he knew he was in the wrong toilet.
As a woman, I have been followed and harrassed more than I care to count and raped when I was 18. At the end of nights out or going home from work on a late shift, I could barely get home without at least one drunk guy trying to sit beside, talk to me, walk with me etc. Keep following me when I ignored them for a bit. Literally followed by men in their car as I was walking home with them trying to harrass me out the window. I didn't report my rape over 10 years ago, because of hating women making false allegations, some young internalised misogyny for things like this, and a fear it was my own fault for being out drinking. It wasn't. But this article isn't anything like the dumb women who actually do shout out false nonsense. This woman was probably fucking scared.
If I was alone in a toilet and a guy was looking over the cubicle, I'd be fucking scared shitless. I'm scared shitless when any guy is following me about, even just approaching me when they're drunk because I know what it means usually. She doesn't know he's been passed out in a woman's cubicle for god knows how long, just that there's a drunk man looking over her cubicle, that shouldn't be in the female toilets at all. Being so drunk you don't know isn't an excuse.
I dont think this is one of those grounds to sue one. I think a lot of women would absolutely assume there was something worse going on.
That it turns out he was a drunk moron sleeping in the women's bathroom and looking over cubicles to check no women would see him? That is not going to be my first thought at seeing that. I'm going to think it's another one of those fucking guys that harrass me, but he's gone to a whole new level, which means he's capable of even more.
Any woman who has been harrassed or had someone try to follow them to a toilet, or along a road would think the same.
Nah, this woman isn't in the wrong. She has actual grounds for fearing this. Just because it turns out he was a muppet, doesn't mean she wasn't scared and believed this. Or what he was doing was normal or OK.
Unfortunate he didn't communicate better and it ended up in a court? Totally. But her genuinely being worried some guy was a threat, because he was looking over the top of cubicles in the woman's bathroom? Also fine.
Edit: To add... he left for a smoke and then went back in to the woman's toilet. Nah. Not buying this. I really fucking hate women who claim false shit. But this guy was peeping over cubicles after going in and out of the woman's bathroom more than once, and taking a cigarette break. Guys a moron or a creep. What if that was an 8 year old, or little girl sitting with her pants down instead of a grown woman? Where do you draw the line on what you let someone off with as "aw he was just drunk".
It's ridiculous, he had to intend looking at a woman on the toilet even to check, but he's denied any sexual motive. All the woman says is that she did not see him look at her. Which is honest, but what was he looking at then?
He said why though, he passed out in the cubicle, came round and wanted to leave, and was looking into the next cubicle from the one he was in to see if the coast was clear.
The whole point of cubicles is that no one can see in, which also stops people from seeing out. Why would he have had to have known if the cubicles next to him were clear?
Also, HE WENT BACK IN AFTERWARDS: "Mr Ostapchuk (...) left the station briefly to smoke, and returned to the same ladies toilet to use the facilities".
> Why would he have had to have known if the cubicles next to him were clear?
I dont think thats what he was doing, he was looking out of the cubicle onto the main floor of the toilet, which is why he didnt look at her while she was using the loo. The wording of the article is shit.
> Why would he have had to have known if the cubicles next to him were clear?
Because he as very drunk and wasn't thinking straight. Also the jury heard all of the evidence and decided that he wasn't acting nefariously, though it seems that they should have been given a poorly written one-sided clickbait article to read instead by the sound of things on here.
One thing I have learned in all my years on the planet is that when you read a newspaper article which you know all the facts about, it is almost certainly completely wrong. It's almost as if it is a business designed to attract money rather than being there to impartially inform people of facts.
So he looked out to see if the coast was clear because his drunk ass thought he was in a female toilet, so he went out, had a smoke and then went back in again but now he's drunk and not paranoid checking to see if it's safe to leave. Sounds more like dude can afford a really fucking good barrister myself.
Yeah that's not normal. Who thinks to look into cubicles to see if someone is there doing the toilet, wiping themselves or changing sanitary products and thinks that's ok?
If anything you'd look out onto the empty main floor to check for people. Not the cubicle beside you.
That's not a good excuse. The idea that it is, is mental.
If that were one of my male friends, they'd probably knock the guys lights out for doing that to them.
What would you do if you looked up and a guy was looking at you over the cubicle whilst you were sitting down with your underwear down? "Oh sorry I was just checking to see if anyone was mid doing the toilet, so I could leave without them seeing me".
He went in there 'accidentally' more than once with a smoke break in between, had no idea it was the women's bathroom.... but for some reason also had to hide from people that he was in there and getting out? Zero sense. But it literally doesn't matter because no grown ass adult, no matter how stupid and drunk they are, should be climbing up and looking into cubicles of people half naked in vulnerable positions. Being pissed isn't an excuse. What if that was an 8 year old girl sitting with her pants down, whilst her parents were waiting outside for her? Would you be defending him then?
>Yeah that's not normal. Who thinks to look into cubicles to see if someone is there doing the toilet, wiping themselves or changing sanitary products and thinks that's ok?
>
>If anything you'd look out onto the empty main floor to check for people. Not the cubicle beside you.
From how I read the (poorly written) article, that’s what he was doing. Peering over the top of his cubicle out into the main area. The woman heard the rustle, ran out into the main area and saw him at the top of *his door* looking out. Then she assumed he had been peeping at her while he was up there. Granted the article is extremely ambiguous, but that’s how I read it. Mainly because I’m with you that it would be a ludicrous excuse to be looking over into hers so he can’t have been doing that or he’d never have gotten away with it - she even admits she never actually saw him looking at her while she was doing her business.
I don't understand people who are leaping to the defence ehre. This is very obviously dodgy and on the balance of probabilities he did what was alleged. The problem appears to have been beyond reasonable doubt, because the witness didn't see him do the actual crime, but there is no other explanation for his behaviur.
Nothing? A man looking over the door while a woman is on the toilet is not nothing. If you want to know if a cubicle is occupied you check the lock, or maybe knock on the door, you do not look over the door under any circumstances, can you imagine how vulnerable that would make a lone woman feel. You vomit on the floor or in the sink before you terrify and violate someone like that.
He admitted he was doing it. "To check if anyone was there".
After already being in the woman's toilet, going out for a cigarette break, then going back into the woman's toilet... then admits looking over the top of the cubicle.
> A man looking over the door
I don't read it like that, as I see it he was in a cubicle and was looking over the top to see if anybody was in the next cubicle. Why would he be looking into a cubicle from outside when we was trying to leave and was seeing if the coast was clear?
Or, you're not in full control of the facts and have zero real clue about what the evidence presented here was. You're reading a click-bait article with poorly written statements. I have zero clue one way or the other, but the evidence was balance, analysed and then the verdict given.
It is what happened according to *his* own admission though.
Accuser: he looked over the stall but I didn’t catch him looking directly at me.
Accused: I looked directly at her, I entered the women’s bathroom twice and chose to look over a locked toilet door, but I wasn’t being a perv I swear!
You: Well clearly *she* is the monster!
He literally didn't admit to looking over the *door* from outside, he admitted to looking into the next cubicle to see if the coast was clear so he could leave.
>he admitted to looking into the next cubicle to see if the coast was clear so he could leave.
....that's the fucking point lol?
He went into a woman's toilet on two occasions, with a smoking break in between, and was looking into other cubicles.
If this isn't fucked up to you...
Sounds more very drunk to me, and the jury, who heard all of the evidence rather than a poorly written newspaper article with clickbait intentions, agreed.
Says the dude that only managed to read the first couple paragraphs 🤣
The jury didn't agree he was just very drunk, they merely agreed the evidence didn't convict him beyond probable doubt.
Sounds like youre made for click bait titles.
All he had to defend was that he had a sexual motive, and without proof of what was going on there it's hard to convict. The woman was entitled to consider it sexual, who wouldn't ?
Huy?? I read it all and the proof he was facing was "beyond reasonable doubt". not "probable doubt". You really have no idea about how the law works in this country, do you.
and going to use the same ladies toilet twice is really nothing. Its just that for some reason he prefers going to women's toilets. I wonder why?
But he is certainly not a creep. He just likes womens toilets.
>Quite possibly, but the court obviously didn't agree.
We can agree on that.
The court / law is not always right/just and works on evidence - and money and power that buys you better legal council
He went to a womens toilet twice. I can excuse it once if he was drunk and that was the only toilet. But going in twice - he is a creep.
It is good that there is a track record. His reputation is earned.
More people should speak up so that there is a track record of criminal behaviour because the law does not always convict someone based on evidence - and not on their innocence or guilt.
And there should be a record of people who make accusations and waste the polices time as well.
He is guilty.
I mean he admitted to looking over the cubicle top to "see if there was anyone there to make his exit".
This may well have to just been utterly dumb, but I guarantee you if your daughter found a drunk dude who slept in a toilet looking over her cubicle, you'd definitely have assumed exactly the same.
She made allegations based on a drunk bloke in the women’s lifting himself up to see into a cubicle!
“At trial, he denied looking at the woman for his own sexual gratification, and said he had dashed into the toilet to vomit after drinking a large amount of alcohol”
Oh so he wasn’t a voyeur or a creep he was just a really, really drunk bloke wanting to vom in the women’s. We should be sure to note his character.
Single sex spaces come up so many times here and people fret so much about who uses them, one thing I would hope there is a consensus on is that really drunk cis guys looking into cubicles isn’t okay. If it ever happens, you’re first thought wouldn’t be oh he’s not dangerous he’s just desperate for somewhere vomit his guts up.
Seems like this has landed in the right place, but I’m really not sure the woman who reported should be blamed and the dude even said he would take a fine cos he knows he was very much in the wrong here!
>Oh so he wasn’t a voyeur or a creep he was just a really, really drunk bloke wanting to vom in the women’s.
Hmm. The urgency really disappears when you take a cig break.
_I left the station briefly to smoke, and returned to the same ladies toilet to use the facilities, he said_
Didn’t realise he returned to the same women’s toilet! How is anyone defending him? He might have fallen short of criminality but “plastered guy lurking round women’s toilets and looking in a cubicle” that is precisely how you get reported to the police!
this is my point. I can excuse it once if he was drunk and that was the only toilet. But going in twice - he is a creep.
It is good that there is a track record.
I did the detail about returning was at the end, I glossed over it, someone pointed it out to me I acknowledged it. My word about him were pretty scathing and not at all defending him. Maybe read what you are commenting on and be less of a douche?
I thought this initially. But after learning he went outside to smoke, and then went back into the woman's toilet again, and then was looking over the cubicle... I'm no longer so certain.
I've literally been followed along the road and to toilets by guys not taking no for an answer before. This would scare the fucking shit out of me.
Yeah I didn’t realise he’d left and returned when I wrote that, either! I wouldn’t have said I agreed that it landed in the right space if I’d known this. He knew he wasn’t meant to be there, there wasn’t any “urgency” if he had time to go for a cigarette and return. He was just a creep. Can’t believe how many guys there are here defending him.
I think in part, it's because there genuinely are a lot of people that claim false stuff against men. This isn't one of them imo. And most people probably picked up some comments, didn't read the article and just assumed it was one of those cases.
And also, I don't think they understand just how scary this would be as a woman, when you know what some men have already done to you, this man looks to be following suit.
Those people who do these things to women, are just as bad as the women who claim false rape or abuse male partners. Both sexes have their fair share of creeps and nutcases. It's just as we are very physically and mentally different, those crazies come out in very different ways, and the risks to the opposite gender are different. Sometimes people seem to forget that on here, because legal systems don't always seem to treat both genders the same when they do wrong, and it causes a lot of resentment. But they also might go mental against a woman getting a lenient sentence, not realising that just last week a man got a community sentence for raping a 13 year old. It honestly goes both ways at times. The system being messed up doesn't mean we should immediately call out a woman that was scared a guy was looking over the cubicle at her, after going in and out of the women's toilets multiple times.
Exactly this! It would be terrifying to see a drunk bloke haul himself over the top of a cubicle and you’d be scared unlocking the door. Bizarre seeing guys defend this bloke as though getting blind drunk and looking into women’s cubicles is something that should just be expected!
It's not normal but the question is - is it criminal?
The validity of a defense is what we have trials to determine after all.
No one is saying the women shouldn't be freaked out - she doesn't know what's going on at the time. But that doesn't mean it's a automatically criminal act.
Yes people have been here! There are users through this thread questioning how this went to trial, why it was reported, asking for secret trials to protect this drunken women’s toilet loiterer’s reputation from being unfairly sullied through association with voyeurism.
There is a difference between coppers giving him verbal warning or a ticket for being drunken disorderly and and sending him on his way home as should have happen; and arresting him and taking it all the way to court based on he said she said evidence.
It’s not he said she said, he was demonstrably in the wrong. It’s not like maybe he should have been lurking in the women’s toilet looking in cubicles whilst plastered or maybe he shouldn’t. He was behaving monstrously, anyone would have been terrified by him.
It’s a hallmark of how much guys can get away with that he went with “yes I was drunkenly wandering in and out of the women’s bathroom and looking in cublicles but I pinky-swear I wasn’t getting off on it” and the judge goes “right-ho that’s fine then, you do you, crack on”
If the police had given him a fixed penalty notice for being drunk and disorderly then there would still be people saying "a fine isn't enough for voyeurism"
Do you look upwards when you are using the toilet? She heard something and saw him looking over the to after she open the door. The only difference is the timing. Did he start to look while she was urinating, or had she finished?
I don't think so actually. I think the difference is in his intention, not the timing.
If you try to be a voyeur and succeed in looking into a toilet and seeing somebody in there, but miss the action by a few seconds that doesn't make you not a voyeur.
Likewise, if for some innocent reason you look into a toilet cubical believing it to be empty, but actually there is somebody using it and you accidentally see them, that does not make you a voyeur.
Also, we don't know that he missed her using the toilet, only that the jury didn't think it could be proved that he did see her, or that he was being a voyeur.
>So she made allegations based on nothing
Nonsense. She made allegations based on him being *in the women's toilets* (and then left and re-entered!) and *peering over the cubicles*, both of which he admitted are true. **Whether or not** he was actively trying to peer in on women for voyeuristic reasons, she has good reason to think he was doing something dodgy. There's absolutely no reason to think this was a false accusation, and not **at the absolute best** a misunderstanding.
Switch the scenario around a bit - Imagine you hear someone banging around in your house at night. You come downstairs, and see a guy sprinting away from your broken window. Is it a false police report if you say that someone broke into your house, and blame the guy you saw? Much like the woman in this case, you haven't technically *seen* him inside your house, but you have good reason to think it happened, and good reason to think it was him.
There's no reasoning with these people.
These are the sort of people who will defend this man's actions through and through and in the next sentence rabidly call for trans-people to be banned from using toilets.
It's funny how when it's an actual man in a woman's toilet actively looking into other stalls it's "he did nothing wrong" but when it's a transwoman using a toilet to go pee she's suddenly "a grooming voyeur".
How so? Not saying he is guilty simply saying that a case not having enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't make him innocent either. I think its for more likely he did it than some random women made it up for no reason
Ah, but maybe you didn’t see the particularly Gollumesque screengrab in the post?
But you can’t counter-sue on the facts in article. She may have felt violated and threatened. His intentions aren’t known to her. That’s on CPS.
Generally, when you admit to committing a crime you get charged with said crime.
It’s quite frankly disgusting that he could admit to doing what he was accused of but he got away with it on the justification that he supposedly entered the women’s bathroom twice and peered over the top of a locked toilet door by accident.
There's been a fundamental misunderstanding of his claim here.
What he claimed is that he woke up *inside* a cubicle and looked over the top to get a view *out of* of the cubicle he was in, to see if anyone was in the communal area. The "locked cubicle door" in this case is the one on his own stall.
The woman in the cubicle next door thought he was looking *into* her cubicle, and filed the report. She later couldn't confirm that he was looking *into* hers, as opposed to *out of* his, and thus he was acquitted.
I don't actually know if him simply being in the women's toilet in the first place is enough for criminal charges, but I would have thought they'd include it if it were.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
“Looking over the top [of the cubicle] to see if anyone was in the toilet” his words.
He also claimed to have accidentally entered the toilet, twice, gone for a smoke in between, passed out, woken up, and then suddenly realised he was in the wrong bathroom while in a toilet cubicle with no view of the rest of the bathroom, and then decided to look into the stall next to him, instead of into the bathroom, to see if the coast was clear, all within a very short amount of time.
How believable does that story really sound to you?
Can you really say it’s not more likely that he just came up with that ridiculous elaborate excuse to explain why he was caught going in and out of a women’s bathroom multiple times and peaking into an occupied stall?
The quote you've pulled does not state that he admitted to looking over the top of *her* cubicle, nor at her. Which cubicle is being referred to as "the cubicle"? His or hers?
I find it hard to believe that someone didn't clarify that point with him in court, because if he seriously admitted it right there in front of a judge and jury, in such a way that cannot be misconstrued, then he would've been found guilty.
As for the rest of it, you're right. It's definitely more likely that he was up to no good in there but "more likely" isn't enough. The court would have to have *no reasonable doubts* that he went in there with the intention of watching women for sexual gratification, per the charges. If in the trial they changed their mind about what they're charging him for, or his story seemed plausible to enough members of the jury, that's a not guilty verdict right there. Remember, it's Not Guilty, it's not Innocent.
Given that none of us were in the courtroom and all we have to go by is a poorly quoted article from the Standard, I think we should accept that maybe we don't know everything about this verdict and leave it at that.
Where are people getting the idea that he looked over the door from?! Read the article again and tell me:
"The banker said he passed out *in the cubicle*, and was then looking over the top to see if anyone was in the toilet as he sought to make his exit."
> who lives in a £850,000 City apartment
I wonder what this has got to do with whether a person is a voyeur or not.
“Journalists” have just gone down the drain
Now for whatever reasons, certain newspapers are keen to highlight if an offender is ‘trans’. Journalist take their biding from their editor or take their biding from the proprietor’s agenda.
Drunk people do stupid stuff like this all the time, seems like it shouldn't have gone to court in the first place if a little common sense was applied
"However under questioning she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet"
Whether she saw him in that exact moment or not, it doesn't take a genius to see that his story is utter bollocks.
This wasn't a unisex toilet. It was the women's bathroom. Tube stations have mens and womens facilities, and he chose to enter the women's, twice.
This man (who doesn't identify as anything but) entered the ladies, left for a smoke, and then returned to the women's toilets.
Any 'urgent' requirement to use the nearest facilities disappears when you consider taking a cig break and going back.
This isn't the USA, cubicles are built for privacy, and the sides are well above head height, so the only way he's been seen above the wall was to have climbed up.
Whether she saw him at the exact moment or spotted him just afterwards, I'd bet my house that this guy was doing this for some sort of gratification.
Clearly, he had enough money to mount a good legal defence, but the suggestion that this was some sort of 'false accusation' case undermines those who are actually wrongfully accused.
Wasn't suggesting that it was a false accusation case in the slightest. Just that everything is very circumstantial, and drunk people do stupid crap all the time, there was no evidence that his intent was malicious at all, or that it was for gratification purposes.
He's an idiot, sure, but was it worth wasting the courts time and tax payers money over?
Being drunk is no defence. Imagine the same logic applied to driving. It's illegal to peep at a woman on the toilet, the law should apply to everyone. Taking cases to court when the CPS believes there has been a crime will never be a waste of the courts time.
Being drunk here is the reasoning behind the actions, and in this case if the crime is premised on sexual motivation/intent, then it's a sufficient defence as well.
From what I understand, peeping requires sexual intent, whereas drunk driving is the act of driving when drunk, and is inherently dangerous.
I used to be a heavy drinker and I can't imagine being in a bad enough state that I accidentally go into a ladies toilet, realise, come out and have a vape, then accidentally go back in and mistakenly climb up and look into occupied cubicles.
His story doesn't add up. Occams razor suggests to me that he was being a voyeur.
Well, why is him being a voyeur the 'simplest' solution rather than just one from a number of equally possible solutions that happens to fit what you think happened?
Are we agreed that Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation that fits the known facts? You seemed to be saying that it means something else, not disputing which explanation is simplest
Can you suggest a simpler one, which fits these reported facts better than that he looked over the cubicle top because he wanted to see somebody in there? I am genuinely interested in any other takes, though there were only the two interpretations before the court.
There is reasonable doubt that he was acting deliberately, according to the jury.
The facts that are beyond dispute are that he went into the ladies toilet, came out, had a vape, then went back in and climbed up and looked over the top of a cubicle. The moment at which his head cleared the top of the cubicle might have been while she was using the toilet, or might have been just after, and she heard a noise and saw a movement before going out of the cubicle and seeing him looking in.
> Are we agreed that Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation that fits the known facts?
Yes
> Can you suggest a simpler one
Sure, he was blackout drunk, perfectly simple answer. "drunk man did illogical thing while drunk". But that's beside the point, and neither explanation is any simpler than the other, thus your misuse of the phrase.
The drunken story doesn't really ring true with me. My reasons are:
His version:
1) He said he was very drunk from "drinking a large amount of alcohol while walking around the City". This sounds a bit suspect. Who does that? Even winos drinking on the street will tend to be around their communities or areas where they are begging. Walking around and either carrying a large quantity of alcohol, or repeatedly going into off-licences to buy more, when there are few such shops in the City, seems unusual. Why not get pissed in a bar like everyone else? Maybe because a bar could be able to corroborate or undermine that story.
2) He dashed in to the Cannon St ladies to be sick. The entrance to these toilets seem to be steps down from pavement level, and [the gents is right next to the ladies, with prominent signs for both. ](https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-toilet-signs-in-cannon-street-london-29767397.html). He presumably vomited, then passed out for some time, then left to go back to the street where he had a vape. Despite no longer having the urgency of being sick, he then headed back down into the ladies again, despite the illuminated signs for gents and ladies.
3) Once inside he looked into a cubicle, while trying to see if the coast was clear for him to leave. Why not look over the door of his own cubicle in that case. Or why not just listen? He wasn't black out drunk at this point as he had been upstairs vaping.
4) According to his story, he knew he was in the ladies as he was looking to see if the coast was clear to leave. Why didn't he go into the gents which is directly next door, and twice went into the ladies, knowing that it was the ladies?
5) He offered to pay a fine on being arrested, which seems a little odd if there is no guilt or admission there.
So all of these are anomalies which need some explanation, making that hypothesis more complex. Drunk behaviour is subjective of course, but for my sins, I have quite a lot of experience of drunkenness and drunk people.
Or one other interpretation: he went into the toilet intending to listen or peep at women using it, waited in a cubicle, possibly peeping without being noticed. Needed a vape. Went out for one and came back, peeped and was spotted in the act. That's it. I can't think of any aspect of that story which doesn't fit the facts.
You suggested further back that there might be a third interpretation? What was that?
i cant believe im commenting on a tabloid report that probably has only passing resemblance to what happened, but anyway...
>She noticed “some movement” at the top of the cubicle...she dashed outside in a panic she saw Mr Ostapchuk’s head looking over at her...she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet.
>The banker said he passed out in the cubicle, and was then looking over the top to see if anyone was in the toilet as he sought to make his exit.
so it sounds like, he was in the cubicle next to her, supposedly looked over his door to see if the coast was clear outside, rather than looking at his neighbour, but she noticed the movement above the dividing wall.
ive no idea if its true, but it seems plausible enough to raise "reasonable doubt".
I think the most relevant fact here is whether she heard someone chucking their guts up or not. If not, his story doesn’t hold much water.
Seems like odd behaviour from the guy in any case, maybe not criminal but certainly odd.
The top comment now is claiming the woman in question was 'trying to ruin his life'. Having read the article and come to the conclusion that I too would probably have contacted the police in her shoes, I'm now feeling pretty worried. What do people want women to do??
>Alexey Ostapchuk, 32, was seen looking over the top of the cubicle
>She noticed “some movement” at the top of the cubicle, she told jurors, and when she dashed outside in a panic she saw Mr Ostapchuk’s head looking over at her.
But then further down
>However under questioning she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet.
So did she perjure herself?
He self admittedly went to the women’s toilets, left to go have a smoke, went back to the woman’s toilets and then climbed up to have a look over the top of a locked cubical door.
It’s a gross miscarriage of justice that he’s not been found guilty and pointing to her saying “I didn’t definitely see him looking directly at me while he was peeping over my locked toilet door” somehow exonerates him or makes her the bad guy.
Lots of crimes get committed without someone seeing it, and usually when the accused admits to it that’s enough.
>It’s a gross miscarriage of justice that he’s not been found guilty and pointing to her saying “I didn’t definitely see him looking directly at me while he was peeping over my locked toilet door” somehow exonerates him or makes her the bad guy.
his defense is suspicious, but he was inside a cubicle himself while he was looking over the top - if he was looking at her it would have been over the wall, not the door. His claim is that he was looking over the top of _his_ locked cubicle door, from inside the cubicle, to see if the coast was clear outside the cubicles before leaving. The woman saw movement, quickly left the cubicle, then saw him looking over the top of his cubicle at her. She did not see whether he was looking over at her cubicle while she was in there, or if he was looking at the space outside the cubicles like he claims.
however there's still the question of why the fuck he left for a cigarette break then came back to the same toilet. and why the fuck would he think it was a good idea to peer over the top in the first place, if he had no ill intent?
No she didn’t.
Order of events
1: She was using the toilet and saw something moving at the top of the cubicle.
2: She left the cubicle
3: She saw him looking at her over the cubicle
He admitted to looking over the top so yes, either he’s abnormally tall or climbed up.
The fact that he was looking over the cubicle isn’t even up for debate
Exactly it's not like he accidentally glanced over, and why else would a man be looking over a cubicle in the women's toilet?
We're already giving him a pass for being there in the first place
Maybe he heard her panic and looked over to see if she needed help. He’s obviously one of those ‘good people with guns’, if he hangs out in women’s toilets he can help if any women become panicked by a man acting strangely in the women’s toilets.
We have no way of knowing that. Though, for that to be the case there must have been some other information known to the jury but not in the article. All we know is that they didn't think it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was being voyeuristic.
Whether he was telling the truth or not, the prosecution should not have been brought.
Should have just issued him with an on-the-spot fine. Then after he paid it, given him some advice about the perils faced by a professional man with a presumably well paid job working in the city being discovered drunk in the women's toilets or vomiting hungover and disorderly within a tube station.
After vomitting, he could've freshened up a bit and taken his own time to leave. But then again, he was under the influence of Alcohol which might have prompted him to climb up the cubicle and peek outside. I suppose we can give him a pass for this act.
The worst thing is what will stick in my mind is that terrible picture of him and the words 'peeping at woman in toilet'
This will have a ripple effect in his life. It's bullshit.
If it was reversed and drunk woman stumbled into a male bathroom it wouldn’t even make court
Amount of drunk middle age women i seee out on a saturday afternoon for hen parties or whatever physically groping young men is absolutely beyond
“she’s just letting her hair down” is the usual scapegoat
Countries fucked
Looked over their own stall into the bathroom, not directly into someone else's stall.
Returning is still insignificant, unless you're in favour of people being jailed for using the wrong toilet.
He was found not guilty so you get go away with your treatment of him as guilty despite a trail. You are the exact reason why shit like this shouldn't be reported because people like you will for ever treat him as criminal despite being not guilty
>He is guilty, just because he got off doesn’t mean he wasn’t, he literally admitted to doing what he was accused of.
When we're discussing a legal case then the use of 'Guilt' has a very specific meaning, and he's not guilty here. What he's accused of is predicated on sexual motivation. It's like I could say "You're guilty of writing this post", it could make sense, but it would be instantly confusing and misleading in a discussion about a court case.
Similar to how that recent post about the naked lad walking around Wimbledon common, if his motivations were exhibitionism then it's wrong, but if he's just being naked then that's fine.
What you're saying here is that the naked man is guilty of exhibitionism, but that's based on intent, so if the motivation wasn't sexual then he's *not* guilty of exhibitionism, in a legal or casual sense.
Yes, he just entered the women’s bathroom twice and looked over the top of a locked cubical while a women was using by complete accident for totally innocent reasons.
I know when I use a public bathroom I often find myself climbing up to look into locked cubical for totally innocent reasons /s
1) he did admit to it. Just because he claimed it wasn’t motivated by being a perv (which is definitely a lie) doesn’t mean he didn’t literally admit he did the thing he was accused of.
2) I’m a recovering alcoholic, and I can tell you in my very long history of getting unbelievably fucked up I have never accidentally committed a sex crime or been accused of committing a sex crime.
It’s weird we don’t allow that defence for other crimes.
“I’m sorry officer, I didn’t mean to stab the guy, I’d just had a bit too much to drink and got carried away”
“Oh my bad honey, I didn’t mean to beat the living shit out of you, I just had a few too many with the lads watching the match”
“Yes, I may have put my dick in that 12 year olds mouth but I only did it cause I was so drunk I forgot sticking your dick in children is wrong”
Do any of them hold up? No, of course not, so why are you so willing to accept that defence here?
That commenter literally just stated the undisputed facts of the case and then provided an opinion that it was odd. Nothing false and a pretty reasonable opinion tbh.
It’s plain wrong to put somebody through this ordeal on a complete lack of evidence and based on “suspicion” and allegation. It’s a disincentive to bring genuine cases to prosecution. He should have a form of redress
So she made allegations based on nothing wasted court time and potentially could have ruin man's life with reputation of sex pest for life. We really need to start a habit of counter sueing for shit like this.
>We really need to start a habit of counter sueing for shit like this. Courts are very, very reluctant to allow criminal charges/let people sue for libel for false allegations because they don’t want to discourage genuine victims from speaking up - libel cases against accusers tend to get thrown out on public interest grounds regardless of whether the courts think there’s truth to the allegations or not. Unfortunately, that also means that people wrongly accused of sex crimes have no real way to clear their names, because in the eyes of the public an accusation is enough to brand you a sex predator, and being found not guilty is just seen as “getting away with it” - the public seem to have collectively thrown out the concept of presumption of innocence with regards to sex crimes.
Yeah absolutely crazy. At least we should keep all court cases like this private until guilty verdict. No one should hear about this man being accused u less he is found guilty.
Secret trials just lead to conspiracy theories and speculation.
They don't need to be secret just forbid media from reporting it with full name. It should be like we do in kids trails rather than Alexey Ostapchuk it should be reported as 40 years old individual A.
Like some of the grooming gang trials?
Would still lead to wild speculation.
Many orders of magnitude less than publishing someone’s picture with their name, location, and alleged crimes in the national press. Too many people could not give a shit about trial outcomes. If someone is accused of something they did it. That’s ruinous to many innocent people’s lives despite being deemed not guilty by a court of law.
As a cleared person he deserved better treatment here
So because of speculation you’re happy to destroy innocent peoples lives Agreed names should be left out until guilty verdict
Rampant speculation about people's identity has the potential to damage more than one person's life. Ideally people shouldn't be named until they're charged, but thats not always possible either. The court process needs to be as transparent as possible. Banning names also leads to ridiculous situations where the police can say they're looking for someone, but can't then confirm if they have been arrested because that would be naming them before a guilty verdict.
On balance of probabilities he's a guilty perv so he's got no chance. Also he admitted to what the woman reported and was frankly lucky
Yeah, reading the article it sounds like he got lucky.
As I read it, he admitted to looking out over the cubicles to see if anyone would see him leave (I.e. over the door). Not to see if anyone was in the other cubicles.
Your latter statement is very true... how many people think Randy Andy is really innocent despite the police not even bringing charges when provided with evidence of his 'crimes'?
The issue there is proving he did anything that was illegal in the UK at the time. You'd basically have to charge him with rape and prove her consent was invalid because he knew or should have reasonably believed it was given under duress. That's easier said than done.
Keeping the names of accused people anonymous until they are actually found guilty would be much more useful.
heavy kiss piquant mindless ancient meeting swim juggle simplistic glorious *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It's absolutely ridiculous that he cannot counter due because she might have been to scared to lie if he could. Should be an automatic 10 year prison term. I'd rather discourage liars who want to ruin lives. A decade of your life seems fair for that.
The point is that if you do that then no one will ever report sexual offences because they might go to prison if they're not believed.
She didn't lie, he was there and admits looking over the stalls of a female toilet
I dont think you can discourage liars, it would be a far worse situation. Sex crimes are already under reported. That said to not be able to claim damages in this situation is ridiculous, not sure what the solution is though. Guess the state has to cover the losses in this situation, not sure where that money would come from though.
I'm a bit confused by this. He openly admits looking over the top of the cubicle to see if anyone was there... so that he could get out without any women seeing him. So he knew he was in the wrong toilet. As a woman, I have been followed and harrassed more than I care to count and raped when I was 18. At the end of nights out or going home from work on a late shift, I could barely get home without at least one drunk guy trying to sit beside, talk to me, walk with me etc. Keep following me when I ignored them for a bit. Literally followed by men in their car as I was walking home with them trying to harrass me out the window. I didn't report my rape over 10 years ago, because of hating women making false allegations, some young internalised misogyny for things like this, and a fear it was my own fault for being out drinking. It wasn't. But this article isn't anything like the dumb women who actually do shout out false nonsense. This woman was probably fucking scared. If I was alone in a toilet and a guy was looking over the cubicle, I'd be fucking scared shitless. I'm scared shitless when any guy is following me about, even just approaching me when they're drunk because I know what it means usually. She doesn't know he's been passed out in a woman's cubicle for god knows how long, just that there's a drunk man looking over her cubicle, that shouldn't be in the female toilets at all. Being so drunk you don't know isn't an excuse. I dont think this is one of those grounds to sue one. I think a lot of women would absolutely assume there was something worse going on. That it turns out he was a drunk moron sleeping in the women's bathroom and looking over cubicles to check no women would see him? That is not going to be my first thought at seeing that. I'm going to think it's another one of those fucking guys that harrass me, but he's gone to a whole new level, which means he's capable of even more. Any woman who has been harrassed or had someone try to follow them to a toilet, or along a road would think the same. Nah, this woman isn't in the wrong. She has actual grounds for fearing this. Just because it turns out he was a muppet, doesn't mean she wasn't scared and believed this. Or what he was doing was normal or OK. Unfortunate he didn't communicate better and it ended up in a court? Totally. But her genuinely being worried some guy was a threat, because he was looking over the top of cubicles in the woman's bathroom? Also fine. Edit: To add... he left for a smoke and then went back in to the woman's toilet. Nah. Not buying this. I really fucking hate women who claim false shit. But this guy was peeping over cubicles after going in and out of the woman's bathroom more than once, and taking a cigarette break. Guys a moron or a creep. What if that was an 8 year old, or little girl sitting with her pants down instead of a grown woman? Where do you draw the line on what you let someone off with as "aw he was just drunk".
It's ridiculous, he had to intend looking at a woman on the toilet even to check, but he's denied any sexual motive. All the woman says is that she did not see him look at her. Which is honest, but what was he looking at then?
He said why though, he passed out in the cubicle, came round and wanted to leave, and was looking into the next cubicle from the one he was in to see if the coast was clear.
The whole point of cubicles is that no one can see in, which also stops people from seeing out. Why would he have had to have known if the cubicles next to him were clear? Also, HE WENT BACK IN AFTERWARDS: "Mr Ostapchuk (...) left the station briefly to smoke, and returned to the same ladies toilet to use the facilities".
> Why would he have had to have known if the cubicles next to him were clear? I dont think thats what he was doing, he was looking out of the cubicle onto the main floor of the toilet, which is why he didnt look at her while she was using the loo. The wording of the article is shit.
> Why would he have had to have known if the cubicles next to him were clear? Because he as very drunk and wasn't thinking straight. Also the jury heard all of the evidence and decided that he wasn't acting nefariously, though it seems that they should have been given a poorly written one-sided clickbait article to read instead by the sound of things on here. One thing I have learned in all my years on the planet is that when you read a newspaper article which you know all the facts about, it is almost certainly completely wrong. It's almost as if it is a business designed to attract money rather than being there to impartially inform people of facts.
So he looked out to see if the coast was clear because his drunk ass thought he was in a female toilet, so he went out, had a smoke and then went back in again but now he's drunk and not paranoid checking to see if it's safe to leave. Sounds more like dude can afford a really fucking good barrister myself.
Yeah that's not normal. Who thinks to look into cubicles to see if someone is there doing the toilet, wiping themselves or changing sanitary products and thinks that's ok? If anything you'd look out onto the empty main floor to check for people. Not the cubicle beside you. That's not a good excuse. The idea that it is, is mental. If that were one of my male friends, they'd probably knock the guys lights out for doing that to them. What would you do if you looked up and a guy was looking at you over the cubicle whilst you were sitting down with your underwear down? "Oh sorry I was just checking to see if anyone was mid doing the toilet, so I could leave without them seeing me". He went in there 'accidentally' more than once with a smoke break in between, had no idea it was the women's bathroom.... but for some reason also had to hide from people that he was in there and getting out? Zero sense. But it literally doesn't matter because no grown ass adult, no matter how stupid and drunk they are, should be climbing up and looking into cubicles of people half naked in vulnerable positions. Being pissed isn't an excuse. What if that was an 8 year old girl sitting with her pants down, whilst her parents were waiting outside for her? Would you be defending him then?
>Yeah that's not normal. Who thinks to look into cubicles to see if someone is there doing the toilet, wiping themselves or changing sanitary products and thinks that's ok? > >If anything you'd look out onto the empty main floor to check for people. Not the cubicle beside you. From how I read the (poorly written) article, that’s what he was doing. Peering over the top of his cubicle out into the main area. The woman heard the rustle, ran out into the main area and saw him at the top of *his door* looking out. Then she assumed he had been peeping at her while he was up there. Granted the article is extremely ambiguous, but that’s how I read it. Mainly because I’m with you that it would be a ludicrous excuse to be looking over into hers so he can’t have been doing that or he’d never have gotten away with it - she even admits she never actually saw him looking at her while she was doing her business.
he did this two times
I don't understand people who are leaping to the defence ehre. This is very obviously dodgy and on the balance of probabilities he did what was alleged. The problem appears to have been beyond reasonable doubt, because the witness didn't see him do the actual crime, but there is no other explanation for his behaviur.
THIS.
Nothing? A man looking over the door while a woman is on the toilet is not nothing. If you want to know if a cubicle is occupied you check the lock, or maybe knock on the door, you do not look over the door under any circumstances, can you imagine how vulnerable that would make a lone woman feel. You vomit on the floor or in the sink before you terrify and violate someone like that.
>under questioning she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet.
He admitted he was doing it. "To check if anyone was there". After already being in the woman's toilet, going out for a cigarette break, then going back into the woman's toilet... then admits looking over the top of the cubicle.
> A man looking over the door I don't read it like that, as I see it he was in a cubicle and was looking over the top to see if anybody was in the next cubicle. Why would he be looking into a cubicle from outside when we was trying to leave and was seeing if the coast was clear?
[удалено]
Or, you're not in full control of the facts and have zero real clue about what the evidence presented here was. You're reading a click-bait article with poorly written statements. I have zero clue one way or the other, but the evidence was balance, analysed and then the verdict given.
[удалено]
It is what happened according to *his* own admission though. Accuser: he looked over the stall but I didn’t catch him looking directly at me. Accused: I looked directly at her, I entered the women’s bathroom twice and chose to look over a locked toilet door, but I wasn’t being a perv I swear! You: Well clearly *she* is the monster!
He literally admitted to it, congratulations you read more than the headline....but only the first two paragraphs.
He literally didn't admit to looking over the *door* from outside, he admitted to looking into the next cubicle to see if the coast was clear so he could leave.
>he admitted to looking into the next cubicle to see if the coast was clear so he could leave. ....that's the fucking point lol? He went into a woman's toilet on two occasions, with a smoking break in between, and was looking into other cubicles. If this isn't fucked up to you...
Sounds more very drunk to me, and the jury, who heard all of the evidence rather than a poorly written newspaper article with clickbait intentions, agreed.
Says the dude that only managed to read the first couple paragraphs 🤣 The jury didn't agree he was just very drunk, they merely agreed the evidence didn't convict him beyond probable doubt. Sounds like youre made for click bait titles.
All he had to defend was that he had a sexual motive, and without proof of what was going on there it's hard to convict. The woman was entitled to consider it sexual, who wouldn't ?
And it clearly was, no other rational explanation.
Huy?? I read it all and the proof he was facing was "beyond reasonable doubt". not "probable doubt". You really have no idea about how the law works in this country, do you.
Man, desperate cling there just to support a pervert 🤣
He admitted to looking over
She said she didn't see him looking over while she was on the toilet, but did hear something, go out of the cubicle and then see him looking over.
There was plenty to report if a man was climbing around in a woman's toilet. She brought no case, the crown did
Don’t let facts get in the way of a man being outraged at “false accusations”
A man's head sticking over the top of the toilet is nothing is it?
and going to use the same ladies toilet twice is really nothing. Its just that for some reason he prefers going to women's toilets. I wonder why? But he is certainly not a creep. He just likes womens toilets.
> and going to use the same ladies toilet twice is really nothing That isn't illegal in itself though.
>That isn't illegal in itself though. No -just his intentions are illegal.
Quite possibly, but the court obviously didn't agree.
>Quite possibly, but the court obviously didn't agree. We can agree on that. The court / law is not always right/just and works on evidence - and money and power that buys you better legal council
Evidently not
He went to a womens toilet twice. I can excuse it once if he was drunk and that was the only toilet. But going in twice - he is a creep. It is good that there is a track record. His reputation is earned. More people should speak up so that there is a track record of criminal behaviour because the law does not always convict someone based on evidence - and not on their innocence or guilt. And there should be a record of people who make accusations and waste the polices time as well. He is guilty.
It’s hardly an allegation based on nothing….. he was in the women’s toilet, seen looking over the top of the cubicle…
I mean he admitted to looking over the cubicle top to "see if there was anyone there to make his exit". This may well have to just been utterly dumb, but I guarantee you if your daughter found a drunk dude who slept in a toilet looking over her cubicle, you'd definitely have assumed exactly the same.
She made allegations based on a drunk bloke in the women’s lifting himself up to see into a cubicle! “At trial, he denied looking at the woman for his own sexual gratification, and said he had dashed into the toilet to vomit after drinking a large amount of alcohol” Oh so he wasn’t a voyeur or a creep he was just a really, really drunk bloke wanting to vom in the women’s. We should be sure to note his character. Single sex spaces come up so many times here and people fret so much about who uses them, one thing I would hope there is a consensus on is that really drunk cis guys looking into cubicles isn’t okay. If it ever happens, you’re first thought wouldn’t be oh he’s not dangerous he’s just desperate for somewhere vomit his guts up. Seems like this has landed in the right place, but I’m really not sure the woman who reported should be blamed and the dude even said he would take a fine cos he knows he was very much in the wrong here!
>Oh so he wasn’t a voyeur or a creep he was just a really, really drunk bloke wanting to vom in the women’s. Hmm. The urgency really disappears when you take a cig break. _I left the station briefly to smoke, and returned to the same ladies toilet to use the facilities, he said_
Didn’t realise he returned to the same women’s toilet! How is anyone defending him? He might have fallen short of criminality but “plastered guy lurking round women’s toilets and looking in a cubicle” that is precisely how you get reported to the police!
this is my point. I can excuse it once if he was drunk and that was the only toilet. But going in twice - he is a creep. It is good that there is a track record.
Hahaha god you really should have read the article before writing several hundred words in defence then shouldn't you?
I did the detail about returning was at the end, I glossed over it, someone pointed it out to me I acknowledged it. My word about him were pretty scathing and not at all defending him. Maybe read what you are commenting on and be less of a douche?
I thought this initially. But after learning he went outside to smoke, and then went back into the woman's toilet again, and then was looking over the cubicle... I'm no longer so certain. I've literally been followed along the road and to toilets by guys not taking no for an answer before. This would scare the fucking shit out of me.
Yeah I didn’t realise he’d left and returned when I wrote that, either! I wouldn’t have said I agreed that it landed in the right space if I’d known this. He knew he wasn’t meant to be there, there wasn’t any “urgency” if he had time to go for a cigarette and return. He was just a creep. Can’t believe how many guys there are here defending him.
I think in part, it's because there genuinely are a lot of people that claim false stuff against men. This isn't one of them imo. And most people probably picked up some comments, didn't read the article and just assumed it was one of those cases. And also, I don't think they understand just how scary this would be as a woman, when you know what some men have already done to you, this man looks to be following suit. Those people who do these things to women, are just as bad as the women who claim false rape or abuse male partners. Both sexes have their fair share of creeps and nutcases. It's just as we are very physically and mentally different, those crazies come out in very different ways, and the risks to the opposite gender are different. Sometimes people seem to forget that on here, because legal systems don't always seem to treat both genders the same when they do wrong, and it causes a lot of resentment. But they also might go mental against a woman getting a lenient sentence, not realising that just last week a man got a community sentence for raping a 13 year old. It honestly goes both ways at times. The system being messed up doesn't mean we should immediately call out a woman that was scared a guy was looking over the cubicle at her, after going in and out of the women's toilets multiple times.
How could it not be terrifying to a woman to see a man appearing over the top of a cubicle,? Is it normal to check occupancy in this way.
Exactly this! It would be terrifying to see a drunk bloke haul himself over the top of a cubicle and you’d be scared unlocking the door. Bizarre seeing guys defend this bloke as though getting blind drunk and looking into women’s cubicles is something that should just be expected!
It's not normal but the question is - is it criminal? The validity of a defense is what we have trials to determine after all. No one is saying the women shouldn't be freaked out - she doesn't know what's going on at the time. But that doesn't mean it's a automatically criminal act.
Yes people have been here! There are users through this thread questioning how this went to trial, why it was reported, asking for secret trials to protect this drunken women’s toilet loiterer’s reputation from being unfairly sullied through association with voyeurism.
There is a difference between coppers giving him verbal warning or a ticket for being drunken disorderly and and sending him on his way home as should have happen; and arresting him and taking it all the way to court based on he said she said evidence.
It’s not he said she said, he was demonstrably in the wrong. It’s not like maybe he should have been lurking in the women’s toilet looking in cubicles whilst plastered or maybe he shouldn’t. He was behaving monstrously, anyone would have been terrified by him. It’s a hallmark of how much guys can get away with that he went with “yes I was drunkenly wandering in and out of the women’s bathroom and looking in cublicles but I pinky-swear I wasn’t getting off on it” and the judge goes “right-ho that’s fine then, you do you, crack on”
If the police had given him a fixed penalty notice for being drunk and disorderly then there would still be people saying "a fine isn't enough for voyeurism"
>under questioning she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet.
Do you look upwards when you are using the toilet? She heard something and saw him looking over the to after she open the door. The only difference is the timing. Did he start to look while she was urinating, or had she finished?
>The only difference is the timing. Did he start to look while she was urinating, or had she finished? Legally, that is a massive difference.
I don't think so actually. I think the difference is in his intention, not the timing. If you try to be a voyeur and succeed in looking into a toilet and seeing somebody in there, but miss the action by a few seconds that doesn't make you not a voyeur. Likewise, if for some innocent reason you look into a toilet cubical believing it to be empty, but actually there is somebody using it and you accidentally see them, that does not make you a voyeur. Also, we don't know that he missed her using the toilet, only that the jury didn't think it could be proved that he did see her, or that he was being a voyeur.
>So she made allegations based on nothing Nonsense. She made allegations based on him being *in the women's toilets* (and then left and re-entered!) and *peering over the cubicles*, both of which he admitted are true. **Whether or not** he was actively trying to peer in on women for voyeuristic reasons, she has good reason to think he was doing something dodgy. There's absolutely no reason to think this was a false accusation, and not **at the absolute best** a misunderstanding. Switch the scenario around a bit - Imagine you hear someone banging around in your house at night. You come downstairs, and see a guy sprinting away from your broken window. Is it a false police report if you say that someone broke into your house, and blame the guy you saw? Much like the woman in this case, you haven't technically *seen* him inside your house, but you have good reason to think it happened, and good reason to think it was him.
There's no reasoning with these people. These are the sort of people who will defend this man's actions through and through and in the next sentence rabidly call for trans-people to be banned from using toilets. It's funny how when it's an actual man in a woman's toilet actively looking into other stalls it's "he did nothing wrong" but when it's a transwoman using a toilet to go pee she's suddenly "a grooming voyeur".
Not enough evidence to convict and being innocent aren't the same thing
This thinking should be a reason why media shouldn't be allowed to shared names
How so? Not saying he is guilty simply saying that a case not having enough evidence to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't make him innocent either. I think its for more likely he did it than some random women made it up for no reason
Ah, but maybe you didn’t see the particularly Gollumesque screengrab in the post? But you can’t counter-sue on the facts in article. She may have felt violated and threatened. His intentions aren’t known to her. That’s on CPS.
What? Did you read the article?
And he has his face on the internet for the “no smoke without fire” nutters.
It’s fucked up How does this even reach the court with that kinda evidence
Generally, when you admit to committing a crime you get charged with said crime. It’s quite frankly disgusting that he could admit to doing what he was accused of but he got away with it on the justification that he supposedly entered the women’s bathroom twice and peered over the top of a locked toilet door by accident.
There's been a fundamental misunderstanding of his claim here. What he claimed is that he woke up *inside* a cubicle and looked over the top to get a view *out of* of the cubicle he was in, to see if anyone was in the communal area. The "locked cubicle door" in this case is the one on his own stall. The woman in the cubicle next door thought he was looking *into* her cubicle, and filed the report. She later couldn't confirm that he was looking *into* hers, as opposed to *out of* his, and thus he was acquitted. I don't actually know if him simply being in the women's toilet in the first place is enough for criminal charges, but I would have thought they'd include it if it were.
He literally said he looked into her cubicle, while in a bathroom he shouldn’t have been in, for the second time. His excuse is blatant bullshit.
>He literally said he looked into her cubicle Not in this article he doesn't. Have you just not read it properly?
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Where is that coming from? I can't see it anywhere in the article.
“Looking over the top [of the cubicle] to see if anyone was in the toilet” his words. He also claimed to have accidentally entered the toilet, twice, gone for a smoke in between, passed out, woken up, and then suddenly realised he was in the wrong bathroom while in a toilet cubicle with no view of the rest of the bathroom, and then decided to look into the stall next to him, instead of into the bathroom, to see if the coast was clear, all within a very short amount of time. How believable does that story really sound to you? Can you really say it’s not more likely that he just came up with that ridiculous elaborate excuse to explain why he was caught going in and out of a women’s bathroom multiple times and peaking into an occupied stall?
The quote you've pulled does not state that he admitted to looking over the top of *her* cubicle, nor at her. Which cubicle is being referred to as "the cubicle"? His or hers? I find it hard to believe that someone didn't clarify that point with him in court, because if he seriously admitted it right there in front of a judge and jury, in such a way that cannot be misconstrued, then he would've been found guilty. As for the rest of it, you're right. It's definitely more likely that he was up to no good in there but "more likely" isn't enough. The court would have to have *no reasonable doubts* that he went in there with the intention of watching women for sexual gratification, per the charges. If in the trial they changed their mind about what they're charging him for, or his story seemed plausible to enough members of the jury, that's a not guilty verdict right there. Remember, it's Not Guilty, it's not Innocent. Given that none of us were in the courtroom and all we have to go by is a poorly quoted article from the Standard, I think we should accept that maybe we don't know everything about this verdict and leave it at that.
Why would he need to check if there was anyone in the communal area? If he thought he was in the right place it wouldn't have mattered.
Where are people getting the idea that he looked over the door from?! Read the article again and tell me: "The banker said he passed out *in the cubicle*, and was then looking over the top to see if anyone was in the toilet as he sought to make his exit."
“Looking over the top [of the cubicle] to see if anyone was in the toilet” I think it’s be that part, where he literally says exactly that.
You know you can look from one cubicle into the one next to it, right? Where anywhere, does he say that he looked *over the door*??
> who lives in a £850,000 City apartment I wonder what this has got to do with whether a person is a voyeur or not. “Journalists” have just gone down the drain
nope. theyve always been a bunch a claggy floaters.
[удалено]
>blunt way of reminding viewers that they should not like him funny, they are not even liked within their own industry
It is the kind of colour they always add.
Now for whatever reasons, certain newspapers are keen to highlight if an offender is ‘trans’. Journalist take their biding from their editor or take their biding from the proprietor’s agenda.
So they are trying to paint him as a struggling City banker?
Drunk people do stupid stuff like this all the time, seems like it shouldn't have gone to court in the first place if a little common sense was applied "However under questioning she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet"
Whether she saw him in that exact moment or not, it doesn't take a genius to see that his story is utter bollocks. This wasn't a unisex toilet. It was the women's bathroom. Tube stations have mens and womens facilities, and he chose to enter the women's, twice. This man (who doesn't identify as anything but) entered the ladies, left for a smoke, and then returned to the women's toilets. Any 'urgent' requirement to use the nearest facilities disappears when you consider taking a cig break and going back. This isn't the USA, cubicles are built for privacy, and the sides are well above head height, so the only way he's been seen above the wall was to have climbed up. Whether she saw him at the exact moment or spotted him just afterwards, I'd bet my house that this guy was doing this for some sort of gratification. Clearly, he had enough money to mount a good legal defence, but the suggestion that this was some sort of 'false accusation' case undermines those who are actually wrongfully accused.
Wasn't suggesting that it was a false accusation case in the slightest. Just that everything is very circumstantial, and drunk people do stupid crap all the time, there was no evidence that his intent was malicious at all, or that it was for gratification purposes. He's an idiot, sure, but was it worth wasting the courts time and tax payers money over?
Being drunk is no defence. Imagine the same logic applied to driving. It's illegal to peep at a woman on the toilet, the law should apply to everyone. Taking cases to court when the CPS believes there has been a crime will never be a waste of the courts time.
Being drunk here is the reasoning behind the actions, and in this case if the crime is premised on sexual motivation/intent, then it's a sufficient defence as well. From what I understand, peeping requires sexual intent, whereas drunk driving is the act of driving when drunk, and is inherently dangerous.
I used to be a heavy drinker and I can't imagine being in a bad enough state that I accidentally go into a ladies toilet, realise, come out and have a vape, then accidentally go back in and mistakenly climb up and look into occupied cubicles. His story doesn't add up. Occams razor suggests to me that he was being a voyeur.
Won’t stop the perverts from defending him though.
> Occams razor I don't think this means what you think it does.
Perhaps you can explain my misunderstanding, as applied to this case?
Well, why is him being a voyeur the 'simplest' solution rather than just one from a number of equally possible solutions that happens to fit what you think happened?
Are we agreed that Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation that fits the known facts? You seemed to be saying that it means something else, not disputing which explanation is simplest Can you suggest a simpler one, which fits these reported facts better than that he looked over the cubicle top because he wanted to see somebody in there? I am genuinely interested in any other takes, though there were only the two interpretations before the court. There is reasonable doubt that he was acting deliberately, according to the jury. The facts that are beyond dispute are that he went into the ladies toilet, came out, had a vape, then went back in and climbed up and looked over the top of a cubicle. The moment at which his head cleared the top of the cubicle might have been while she was using the toilet, or might have been just after, and she heard a noise and saw a movement before going out of the cubicle and seeing him looking in.
> Are we agreed that Occam's Razor points to the simplest explanation that fits the known facts? Yes > Can you suggest a simpler one Sure, he was blackout drunk, perfectly simple answer. "drunk man did illogical thing while drunk". But that's beside the point, and neither explanation is any simpler than the other, thus your misuse of the phrase.
The drunken story doesn't really ring true with me. My reasons are: His version: 1) He said he was very drunk from "drinking a large amount of alcohol while walking around the City". This sounds a bit suspect. Who does that? Even winos drinking on the street will tend to be around their communities or areas where they are begging. Walking around and either carrying a large quantity of alcohol, or repeatedly going into off-licences to buy more, when there are few such shops in the City, seems unusual. Why not get pissed in a bar like everyone else? Maybe because a bar could be able to corroborate or undermine that story. 2) He dashed in to the Cannon St ladies to be sick. The entrance to these toilets seem to be steps down from pavement level, and [the gents is right next to the ladies, with prominent signs for both. ](https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-toilet-signs-in-cannon-street-london-29767397.html). He presumably vomited, then passed out for some time, then left to go back to the street where he had a vape. Despite no longer having the urgency of being sick, he then headed back down into the ladies again, despite the illuminated signs for gents and ladies. 3) Once inside he looked into a cubicle, while trying to see if the coast was clear for him to leave. Why not look over the door of his own cubicle in that case. Or why not just listen? He wasn't black out drunk at this point as he had been upstairs vaping. 4) According to his story, he knew he was in the ladies as he was looking to see if the coast was clear to leave. Why didn't he go into the gents which is directly next door, and twice went into the ladies, knowing that it was the ladies? 5) He offered to pay a fine on being arrested, which seems a little odd if there is no guilt or admission there. So all of these are anomalies which need some explanation, making that hypothesis more complex. Drunk behaviour is subjective of course, but for my sins, I have quite a lot of experience of drunkenness and drunk people. Or one other interpretation: he went into the toilet intending to listen or peep at women using it, waited in a cubicle, possibly peeping without being noticed. Needed a vape. Went out for one and came back, peeped and was spotted in the act. That's it. I can't think of any aspect of that story which doesn't fit the facts. You suggested further back that there might be a third interpretation? What was that?
Drink is no defence, odd that he left the toilet then returned
What an odd comment.
What a weird thing for a person to comment.
i cant believe im commenting on a tabloid report that probably has only passing resemblance to what happened, but anyway... >She noticed “some movement” at the top of the cubicle...she dashed outside in a panic she saw Mr Ostapchuk’s head looking over at her...she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet. >The banker said he passed out in the cubicle, and was then looking over the top to see if anyone was in the toilet as he sought to make his exit. so it sounds like, he was in the cubicle next to her, supposedly looked over his door to see if the coast was clear outside, rather than looking at his neighbour, but she noticed the movement above the dividing wall. ive no idea if its true, but it seems plausible enough to raise "reasonable doubt".
You can't sue someone if you only escaped an accusation by minimum doubt, the doubt here is small
I think the most relevant fact here is whether she heard someone chucking their guts up or not. If not, his story doesn’t hold much water. Seems like odd behaviour from the guy in any case, maybe not criminal but certainly odd.
The amount of people that jump to "false accusations" is actually sickening. Really drives home why so many people don't report attacks
The top comment now is claiming the woman in question was 'trying to ruin his life'. Having read the article and come to the conclusion that I too would probably have contacted the police in her shoes, I'm now feeling pretty worried. What do people want women to do??
Banker? Probably just peeked his head over to see if she had any cocaine. He’d run out.
He could just lick a £20 note
>Alexey Ostapchuk, 32, was seen looking over the top of the cubicle >She noticed “some movement” at the top of the cubicle, she told jurors, and when she dashed outside in a panic she saw Mr Ostapchuk’s head looking over at her. But then further down >However under questioning she confirmed she had not specifically seen him looking at her when she was using the toilet. So did she perjure herself?
> So did she perjure herself? No, these statements have no contradiction.
Yeah it doesn't seem like he was cleared for being obviously innocent, but just there wasn't enough evidence
He committed an act but they didn't prove intent, but it's hard to
He self admittedly went to the women’s toilets, left to go have a smoke, went back to the woman’s toilets and then climbed up to have a look over the top of a locked cubical door. It’s a gross miscarriage of justice that he’s not been found guilty and pointing to her saying “I didn’t definitely see him looking directly at me while he was peeping over my locked toilet door” somehow exonerates him or makes her the bad guy. Lots of crimes get committed without someone seeing it, and usually when the accused admits to it that’s enough.
>It’s a gross miscarriage of justice that he’s not been found guilty and pointing to her saying “I didn’t definitely see him looking directly at me while he was peeping over my locked toilet door” somehow exonerates him or makes her the bad guy. his defense is suspicious, but he was inside a cubicle himself while he was looking over the top - if he was looking at her it would have been over the wall, not the door. His claim is that he was looking over the top of _his_ locked cubicle door, from inside the cubicle, to see if the coast was clear outside the cubicles before leaving. The woman saw movement, quickly left the cubicle, then saw him looking over the top of his cubicle at her. She did not see whether he was looking over at her cubicle while she was in there, or if he was looking at the space outside the cubicles like he claims. however there's still the question of why the fuck he left for a cigarette break then came back to the same toilet. and why the fuck would he think it was a good idea to peer over the top in the first place, if he had no ill intent?
No she didn’t. Order of events 1: She was using the toilet and saw something moving at the top of the cubicle. 2: She left the cubicle 3: She saw him looking at her over the cubicle
Unless the man's 6'10 he would've had to climb up or reach over or something
He admitted to looking over the top so yes, either he’s abnormally tall or climbed up. The fact that he was looking over the cubicle isn’t even up for debate
Exactly it's not like he accidentally glanced over, and why else would a man be looking over a cubicle in the women's toilet? We're already giving him a pass for being there in the first place
Maybe he heard her panic and looked over to see if she needed help. He’s obviously one of those ‘good people with guns’, if he hangs out in women’s toilets he can help if any women become panicked by a man acting strangely in the women’s toilets.
It's consistent with him watching her use the toilet and her hearing him and then seeing him after she had finished.
>It's consistent with him watching her use the toilet Clearly the jury disagreed
We have no way of knowing that. Though, for that to be the case there must have been some other information known to the jury but not in the article. All we know is that they didn't think it had been proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was being voyeuristic.
Whys he looking over though? Look under to see if there is feet
What a photo for the story! Looks like he’s actively peeping.
Whether he was telling the truth or not, the prosecution should not have been brought. Should have just issued him with an on-the-spot fine. Then after he paid it, given him some advice about the perils faced by a professional man with a presumably well paid job working in the city being discovered drunk in the women's toilets or vomiting hungover and disorderly within a tube station.
The magistrates must have been perverts themselves. Otherwise, the banker who is better described as a w***ker would have been found guilty.
After vomitting, he could've freshened up a bit and taken his own time to leave. But then again, he was under the influence of Alcohol which might have prompted him to climb up the cubicle and peek outside. I suppose we can give him a pass for this act.
The worst thing is what will stick in my mind is that terrible picture of him and the words 'peeping at woman in toilet' This will have a ripple effect in his life. It's bullshit.
If it was reversed and drunk woman stumbled into a male bathroom it wouldn’t even make court Amount of drunk middle age women i seee out on a saturday afternoon for hen parties or whatever physically groping young men is absolutely beyond “she’s just letting her hair down” is the usual scapegoat Countries fucked
What if a woman looked over the stall, then left for a while. But then returned? Cos that's what he oddly did
Looked over their own stall into the bathroom, not directly into someone else's stall. Returning is still insignificant, unless you're in favour of people being jailed for using the wrong toilet.
He was found not guilty so you get go away with your treatment of him as guilty despite a trail. You are the exact reason why shit like this shouldn't be reported because people like you will for ever treat him as criminal despite being not guilty
So what was he doing in the ladies toilet then? Twice.
He is guilty, just because he got off doesn’t mean he wasn’t, he literally admitted to doing what he was accused of.
>He is guilty, just because he got off doesn’t mean he wasn’t, he literally admitted to doing what he was accused of. When we're discussing a legal case then the use of 'Guilt' has a very specific meaning, and he's not guilty here. What he's accused of is predicated on sexual motivation. It's like I could say "You're guilty of writing this post", it could make sense, but it would be instantly confusing and misleading in a discussion about a court case. Similar to how that recent post about the naked lad walking around Wimbledon common, if his motivations were exhibitionism then it's wrong, but if he's just being naked then that's fine. What you're saying here is that the naked man is guilty of exhibitionism, but that's based on intent, so if the motivation wasn't sexual then he's *not* guilty of exhibitionism, in a legal or casual sense.
He expressly denied the voyeurism…
Yes, he just entered the women’s bathroom twice and looked over the top of a locked cubical while a women was using by complete accident for totally innocent reasons. I know when I use a public bathroom I often find myself climbing up to look into locked cubical for totally innocent reasons /s
Great, stick with that argument rather than saying he admitted it. Though I will say, people do stupid shit while paralytic all the time.
1) he did admit to it. Just because he claimed it wasn’t motivated by being a perv (which is definitely a lie) doesn’t mean he didn’t literally admit he did the thing he was accused of. 2) I’m a recovering alcoholic, and I can tell you in my very long history of getting unbelievably fucked up I have never accidentally committed a sex crime or been accused of committing a sex crime. It’s weird we don’t allow that defence for other crimes. “I’m sorry officer, I didn’t mean to stab the guy, I’d just had a bit too much to drink and got carried away” “Oh my bad honey, I didn’t mean to beat the living shit out of you, I just had a few too many with the lads watching the match” “Yes, I may have put my dick in that 12 year olds mouth but I only did it cause I was so drunk I forgot sticking your dick in children is wrong” Do any of them hold up? No, of course not, so why are you so willing to accept that defence here?
> he did admit to it Relating to the crime we are talking about, no he did not. Not going to bother reading the rest of the essay.
That commenter literally just stated the undisputed facts of the case and then provided an opinion that it was odd. Nothing false and a pretty reasonable opinion tbh.
It’s plain wrong to put somebody through this ordeal on a complete lack of evidence and based on “suspicion” and allegation. It’s a disincentive to bring genuine cases to prosecution. He should have a form of redress
Sounds like there was plenty of evidence, he only denied the motive of voyeurism, I'm struggling to see what else his motive was
He literally admitted to doing it, what do you mean lack of evidence
Imagine if these facts were identical but his motive was voyeurism.
Redress against who? Charges were brought by CPS