Sexual assault...but sure he's a nice lad..Mod Warning Post 275

Zulu

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Oh please!...

Shit troll; your mistake was choosing to support a convicted sex offender.

Silverfish

SuperInfinity banned.

uberpixie

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Oh please!

Get real. I believe she led him on, he was drunk out of his mind and then she went and made a big incident out of it.

She's playing to the media, parroting away lines like she will have to live with it forever, is she MAD?! It's HIS life that is ruined.

Give me a break. :mad:

You are so right: clearly it's all her fault that she was found half naked and unconscious. What a whore. Clearly a man is justified in carrying off a random, drunk and incoherent girl out the back behind a skip to have his way with her. Clearly he is only a man and therefore cannot be held accountable as he was horny and wanted a ride and we all know men cannot control themselves.

Obviously this isn't rape, she was unconscious, unconscious girls don't say no and everyone knows it's only rape if you say no..... And she wouldn't have been drunk if she wasn't a dirty slag anyhow....

The guards found him with his lad out over a half naked girl covered in bruises. He lied through his teeth about it and then changed his tune once CCTV was produced.

He lied and and got caught by the guards forcing himself on a drunk girl who was unconscious. He got everything he deserved.

It's simple: if someone is unconscious or paralytic with drink you don't take advantage of them. End of.

Zulu

It wasn't rape.

This has been covered time and again on this thread.

AudreyHepburn

Zulu wrote: »

It wasn't rape.

This has been covered time and again on this thread.

I've said it before but I'll say it again I really think it's irrelevent whether he raped her or sexually assaulted her. This argument is being made repeatedly but I really think it misses the point of this thread and of the outcry about the case.

The point is he attacked, injured and traumatised a vunerable young woman but due to his apparent " good character" is being canonised by some people for it.

Regardless of the term you choose to describe it Foley is a sexual offender. He is the criminal here but yet the young woman is the one serving the sentence, taking the punishment.

People need to stop getting so heated up over what term is used to describe what Foley. It really is beside the point here.

Not to mention it almost makes you look like you think what he didn't was as bad as it seems, which is completely wrong. Not saying that's what anyone thinks but that's how it comes across.

BaZmO*

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I've said it before but I'll say it again I really think it's irrelevent whether he raped her or sexually assaulted her. This argument is being made repeatedly but I really think it misses the point of this thread and of the outcry about the case.

Legally it makes a BIG difference.

Zulu

It matters a hell of a lot to the owners of Boards.ie

hussey

uberpixie wrote: »

You are so right: clearly it's all her fault that she was found half naked and unconscious. What a whore. Clearly a man is justified in carrying off a random, drunk and incoherent girl out the back behind a skip to have his way with her. Clearly he is only a man and therefore cannot be held accountable as he was horny and wanted a ride and we all know men cannot control themselves.

Obviously this isn't rape, she was unconscious, unconscious girls don't say no and everyone knows it's only rape if you say no..... And she wouldn't have been drunk if she wasn't a dirty slag anyhow....

The guards found him with his lad out over a half naked girl covered in bruises. He lied through his teeth about it and then changed his tune once CCTV was produced.

He lied and and got caught by the guards forcing himself on a drunk girl who was unconscious. He got everything he deserved.

It's simple: if someone is unconscious or paralytic with drink you don't take advantage of them. End of.

he knew her 9 years and they were friends.

oceanclub

hussey wrote: »

he knew her 9 years and they were friends.

Link?

And anyway, even if true, irrelevant; it's not fine to sexually assault comatose women because you know them.

P.

seamus

hussey wrote: »

he knew her 9 years and they were friends.

Most sexual assualts are carried out by people close to the victim.

herya

Here's the transcript of the victims interview with Marian Finucane on RTE:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/listowel-victim-tells-of-her-harrowing-ordeal-1983244.html

Boston

hussey wrote: »

he knew her 9 years and they were friends.

How many years do you need to know someone before they get permission to force themselves upon you? Cause, Like, I have known people way longer then 9 years.

herya: The transcript seems to be cut short.

Zulu

Boston wrote: »

How many years do you need to know someone before they get permission to force themselves upon you?

No one was suggesting that.

panda100

Zulu wrote: »

No one was suggesting that.

To me it sounded like thats what Hussey was suggesting. That the fact that she was not a 'random' girl and actually a friend made some sort of difference?

Believe me,without CCTV footage, the fact that he was a friend and not a stranger probably would have got him off, and most people on here would be backing him up too.

BaZmO*

Tbh, I'm fairly shocked that he knew her for 9 years, making her 13 when they first met and him 24 and yet he still took advantage. Creepy in the extreme.

sparkling sea

This guy was convicted of sexual assault not rape. Some people still seem to be mixing them up

Indecent assualt and the offence of assault were merged together in 1990 and are now known as sexual assault. These offences allowed for everything from indecent exposure and stopped short at rape - not including s4 rape.

Sexual assault being that (a) the accused intentionally assaulted the victim, (b)this assault and the circumstances surronding it are considered indecent by right minded people and (c) the accused intended it to commit the type of assault referred to in (b)

He inteneded it to happen - it wasn't reckless thinking on his behalf , he didn't think this might be consensual - he intended to sexual assault a woman because he wanted to. And thats what he did.

I don't know if he put forward the defence that he honestly thought that the woman was consenting to be sexually assaulted, but either way - 12 people,
10 men and 2 women found his guilty, probably because there was CCTV footage, the Gardai found him alert and aware, he lied.

Rape was originally seen as a crime against a man, as women were veiwed as mens property. In some countries that we would consider much less developed then ours this type of thinking still persists. Maybe we could move all the people who went up to shake this guy's hand to one of these countries, I bet they wouldn't be long about changing their tune about their backward or traditional thinking then

Zulu

panda100 wrote: »

To me it sounded like thats what Hussey was suggesting.

<edit>I didn't take it thats what (s)he was implying at all. It was just a statment of fact, as far as I could see.</edit>

That the fact that she was not a 'random' girl and actually a friend made some sort of difference?

Well yea, it almost makes it worse. But it does make a difference. It also supports the concept that sex crimes are committed, more often, by people who are known to the victim.

Believe me,without CCTV footage, the fact that he was a friend and not a stranger probably would have got him off,

Perhaps, but it's conjecture and I don't care to get into "what ifs". What's happened sickens me enough.

and most people on here would be backing him up too.

I don't believe this, and frankly I’m a little offended by it.

You clearly have a very poor opinion of "most people on here", that's your problem and I'll leave it with you, but I've never found myself defending a sexual assault or any other sex crime, and I don't care to be associated with anyone that would.

sparkling sea

As this is The Ladies Lounge, us ladies need to be aware that the jury compilation in rape or sexual offence trials is really important.

The more men on a jury in these types of trials, the higher the chances of a conviction. Maybe its because the men are judging the perpetrator and not the victim.

We women (in my opinion) need to take ownership of the fact that in general we are our own harshiest critics - the shout needs to go out that women support and believe each other. This support is needed not only in words but also in t actions. In rape and sexual offence trials in general we are biased. It would appear we do not make our decisions solely on the facts of these cases, this is something we need to be aware of and change.

BaZmO*

sparkling sea wrote: »

The more men on a jury in these types of trials, the higher the chances of a conviction. Maybe its because the men are judging the perpetrator and not the victim.

We women (in my opinion) need to take ownership of the fact that in general we are our own harshiest critics - the shout needs to go out that women support and believe each other. This support is needed not only in words but also in t actions. In rape and sexual offence trials in general we are biased. It would appear we do not make our decisions solely on the facts of these cases, this is something we need to be aware of and change.

Really? Have you got proof of this?

I was under the impression that when it comers to these types of cases the defence (man being accused) would rather have a higher percentage of men on the jury?

sparkling sea wrote: »

We women (in my opinion) need to take ownership of the fact that in general we are our own harshiest critics - the shout needs to go out that women support and believe each other. This support is needed not only in words but also in t actions. In rape and sexual offence trials in general we are biased. It would appear we do not make our decisions solely on the facts of these cases, this is something we need to be aware of and change.

But yet 50 people (mostly men) went up to the convicted man to show their support.

herya

BaZmO* wrote: »

Really? Have you got proof of this?

I was under the impression that when it comers to these types of cases the defence (man being accused) would rather have a higher percentage of men on the jury?

I don't remember where but I've read it recently too. It was explained that the women might be thinking "it could have happened to me" so are trying to find faults in the victim's behaviour to feel safer themselves.

A Primal Nut

listowel1 wrote: »

As you can see from my profile, you can guess where im from!!
Firstly i do not personally know either of the two people involved in this case..however once I saw the image of the man sentenced today i recognised him straight away.I saw him workin about two weeks ago and i must complement his employer who spoke about him in a paper today, this bouncer anytime i saw him workin was alovely fella.in fact i have talked to him many times while i was in a drunken state, an i can guarantee you he is not the man i am reading about here or in national newspapers!
But he has been convicted for this serious crime, so he has to pay his penalty. However i have suspicions that there is more to this story than we are led to believe.Because why would roughly 50 people go into a courtroom in tralee and shake this mans hand unless they know something we dont! Also its being reported that everyone in listowel knows this womans name, well i for one dont know who she is.

I hate this kind of argument - oh, but he was nice to me- how do you expect him to do - call you a b******? I've rarely met anyone who is nasty to my face when I meet them - it doesn't mean they aren't capable of certain things. Just because he sexually assaulted some girl and is a b****** doesn't mean he is nasty to everyone he meets.

The argument 'that he is not the man you read in the newspapers' - the newspapers have been fair with him - all the criticisms have been because of his behaviour in this case - nobody is questioning whether he was polite or not. But its also irrelevant. He can be the most polite person in the world but it doesn't mean he is not capable of sexual assault.

smileysurfer

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I hate this kind of argument - oh, but he was nice to me- how do you expect him to do - call you a b******? I've rarely met anyone who is nasty to my face when I meet them - it doesn't mean they aren't capable of certain things. Just because he sexually assaulted some girl and is a b****** doesn't mean he is nasty to everyone he meets.

The argument 'that he is not the man you read in the newspapers' - the newspapers have been fair with him - all the criticisms have been because of his behaviour in this case - nobody is questioning whether he was polite or not. But its also irrelevant. He can be the most polite person in the world but it doesn't mean he is not capable of sexual assault.

Well said, If only everyone had your logic!! ...

BaZmO*

herya wrote: »

I don't remember where but I've read it recently too. It was explained that the women might be thinking "it could have happened to me" so are trying to find faults in the victim's behaviour to feel safer themselves.

Interesting.

I've done jury duty before on a sexual assault case and when they were choosing the jury the defence were dismissing any women that were called, favouring men instead.

herya

BaZmO* wrote: »

Interesting.

I've done jury duty before on a sexual assault case and when they were choosing the jury the defence were dismissing any women that were called, favouring men instead.

Was it recently?

Another argument I read somewhere (don't remember if it was the same article) is that due to time requirements most women on juries are older, homemakers or retired and they disapprove of a recent wave of drinking culture resulting in "both drunk" assaults, so because of this they put more of the blame on the victim.

BaZmO*

herya wrote: »

Was it recently?

A few years ago, about 10?

herya wrote: »

Another argument I read somewhere (don't remember if it was the same article) is that due to time requirements most women on juries are older, homemakers or retired and they disapprove of a recent wave of drinking culture resulting in "both drunk" assaults, so because of this they put more of the blame on the victim.

Well time restraints would apply to everyone but I take your point.
I remember whenever a woman over, say 40, would be called out to approach the bench to be sworn in, they'd barely get near the bench before they were dismissed.

sparkling sea

BaZmO* wrote: »

Really? Have you got proof of this?

I was under the impression that when it comers to these types of cases the defence (man being accused) would rather have a higher percentage of men on the jury?

.

I know it s disappointing but its true and something women need to recognise and remedy. The Sunday Times devoted a few pages to research into jury compilation. Older female jurists were the least likely to convict in these types of cases. A jury with more male then female jourors most likely to convict.

Mr Justice Paul Carney discussing research he was involved with, with among others the Rape Crisis Network Ireland stated he would not be in favour of a gender quota being introduced with regard to rape trial juries.

He said he believed that women were often the harshest critics of female rape victims, especially when it came to the issues of drink, or going to strangers' flats or into their cars.

He said he believed introducing a gender quota on rape trial juries, to include more women, would increase acquittals, as women are more likely to acquit in these cases.

I know there is a huge amount of academic reaseacher on jury complication in the US " Women’s hostility toward women in rape trials: Testing the intra-female gender hostility thesis " makes for comples but very interesting reading

BaZmO* wrote: »

But yet 50 people (mostly men) went up to the convicted man to show their support.

Your taking this out of context - as I said these older men wouldn't be long about being glad they live in a country that has advanced, if they had to suffer the injustice of inequality which they appeared to be condoning.

sparkling sea

BaZmO* wrote: »

Interesting.

I've done jury duty before on a sexual assault case and when they were choosing the jury the defence were dismissing any women that were called, favouring men instead.

You are assuming that the defence have actually looked at the research available with regard to jury compilation - Ireland is way behind with in this area of Criminal Justice and research.

As far as I am aware criminology and especially victimology has only been introduced as serious topics of study relatively recently in Ireland and law students don not generally study these topics. They may not come upon the research because of this

seamus

BaZmO* wrote: »

Interesting.

I've done jury duty before on a sexual assault case and when they were choosing the jury the defence were dismissing any women that were called, favouring men instead.

You can probably actually think of this in simpler terms:

Imagine someone posted on boards saying, "My car was robbed last night, bloody bastards! I forgot to lock the door and turn on the alarm, and some bastard came along and took it". You could be guaranteed that within the first couple of posts, a number of people would say, "Eh, it's your fault for not locking your car and turning on the alarm, what did you expect?" - obvioulsy completely missing the fact that it was entirely the fault of the piece of scum who robbed the car.

It's probably something selfish - people think, "Oh God, could that happen to me? Oh wait no it couldn't because *I'm* always careful whereas this person wasn't, the eejit."

You can easily extend this to rape and sexual assault - "Sure what did she expect getting hammered and wearing a short skirt, any sensible woman would never have done that.". Men on the other hand would have little or no experience of taking personal precautions - we only avoid walking down dodgy streets - we have no qualms about walking through a lonely road at night on our own, so therefore we only judge the person in the incident to whom we can relate - i.e. the male perp.

In a wider social context this is probably why humanitarian disasters provoke the most sympathy from people - stuff like bombing and earthquakes. People know that there is nothing they can do about it, therefore everyone involved is a genuine victim and not someone who was just careless.

Warfi

seamus wrote: »

It's probably something selfish - people think, "Oh God, could that happen to me? Oh wait no it couldn't because *I'm* always careful whereas this person wasn't, the eejit."

good post, it's always easy to look at someone else and say 'that'll never happen to me'.

To extend further, this case is made even worse by the fact that this woman probably thought the same ie 'That'll never happen to me'. It did, she succeeded in bringing it to court which is no mean feat. Such a huge amount of stress for anyone to handle. Yet the nightmare still goes on for her...she brought it to court and now faces a life of intimidation from Foley's friends because she dared stand up to him.

BaZmO*

Good analogy Seamus, although I'd say the main difference in this case was that the victim knew the guy and probably didn't think she was putting herself at risk. But using the example in your analogy, someone being critical could accuse her of being wreckless by getting so drunk.