Woman found guilty of rape in hotel toilet

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Draft the law. You are right about the differences in gender, weight, and general constitution but laws on drunkenness take no account of that elsewhere. Like drink driving.

The law has to determine what drunkenness it, it cant be a loose limit dependent on the actual person, it has to be based on alcohol in the blood.

So I am asking you for the limit. 2 pints? One glass of wine? Some port after a meal?

Why would 2 pints be the limit? You are deliberately being facetious here. Two pints or one glass of wine does not a drunk person make. You cannot legislate an exact alcohol amount for something like this as it affects different people in different ways. My mother can drink four pints and is fairly pissed and I have a friend that can drink 8 vodkas and she's nowhere near pissed. However, it doesn't take a genius to work out when either of them are drunk, regardless of what amount they've imbibed.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

Also, what is your deal with women? What do statements like even mean?

What does what even mean even mean? We have already pointed out in this thread that the laws treat men and women differently on consent.

In Ireland, for instance, if two 15 year heterosexuals have consensual sex then the girl is statutory raped but not the boy.

midlandsmissus

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

This, by the way, is not the end of it. There is always a reaction to sexual libertinism from puritans. This time the reaction from the right was overcome, the real reaction is from the left ( although the "left" is a broad church, so not all of them).

There is a law, soon to be passed, in the UK and other countries which will effectively ban 90% of all sexual activity. Its the "women can't consent when drunk" law. As usual the law is sexist, applying to women - who can be raped, but not men.

The legal definition of "drunk" will be up to the courts to decide, but they will probably follow the only direction they have on drunkenness - the laws on drink driving. Any precedent will be followed by any other court, so sex with someone over the limit ( a glass of wine, or two) will be rape. Thus ending most sex. Even in marriage, over a nice meal and a glass ( or two) of wine. RAPE!!

Juries will nullify to start with, but the feminist movement is opposed to juries so they will then work on that one.

And if you dont think that "liberals" on here would defend this: look at this thread. A woman consents to passionate kissing in a public place but screams rape as a minor bit of fingering. This isnt just about storming out of the toilets - but a legal case brought against the "rapist" and her punishment as a sex criminal for life.

Brink back Catholicism.

'a minor bit of fingering'. Scary stuff you said there mate. Let me tell you, two years ago I was standing in a pub when this old man walked towards me, stuck out his arm, groped me up between the legs and walked on as if nothing had happened. I went after saying what the hell are you doing, and he just said sorry. I still feel violated by 'a bit of fingering', wish id reported the f8cker. Not having control over who touches your body is an awful, awful feeling.

Rabble Rabble

Millicent wrote: »

Why would 2 pints be the limit? You are deliberately being facetious here. Two pints or one glass of wine does not a drunk person make. You cannot legislate an exact alcohol amount for something like this as it affects different people in different ways. My mother can drink four pints and is fairly pissed and I have a friend that can drink 8 vodkas and she's nowhere near pissed. However, it doesn't take a genius to work out when either of them are drunk, regardless of what amount they've imbibed.

The law has to try to be exact. It doesn't take the size of a woman, or man, into account when issuing drink driving ordinances, since that would be impossible to measure. The scientific measurement is of blood alcohol level, or just units of alcohol.

Anyway, whatever limit is set will make illegal a hell of a lot of normal sexual activity on a saturday night. Or a Friday night. Or a Tuesday night for students.

My last serious long night out, after work, started at 5pm and ended at 2AM, after which two people I worked with got it together. There was a meal in between, but alcohol was taken there too, and the time we spent after work was longer than a working day. How could they not have been drunk? Too drunk for whatever law you want passed?

This is not uncommon. how many of the x% of people who stroll out of clubs at 2AM as newly formed, and possibly temporary, couples would not be over any limit you set?

At a rough guess 100%.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

What does what even mean even mean? We have already pointed out in this thread that the laws treat men and women differently on consent.

In Ireland, for instance, if two 15 year heterosexuals have consensual sex then the girl is statutory raped but not the boy.

But here we have a case where a woman was treated exactly like a man would be and you're dismissing it as a "minor bit of fingering." Make up your mind.

Millicent

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The law has to try to be exact. It doesn't take the size of a woman, or man, into account when issuing drink driving ordinances, since that would be impossible to measure. The scientific measurement is of blood alcohol level, or just units of alcohol.

Anyway, whatever limit is set will make illegal a hell of a lot of normal sexual activity on a saturday night. Or a Friday night. Or a Tuesday night for students.

My last serious long night out, after work, started at 5pm and ended at 2AM, after which two people I worked with got it together. There was a meal in between, but alcohol was taken there too, and the time we spent after work was longer than a working day. How could they not have been drunk? Too drunk for whatever law you want passed?

This is not uncommon. how many of the x% of people who stroll out of clubs at 2AM as newly formed, and possibly temporary, couples would not be over any limit you set?

At a rough guess 100%.

None of that constitutes "too drunk to give consent". If your sexual partner is so drunk that they cannot walk straight, is stumbling, is falling down, cannot form coherent sentences or is falling asleep, they are too drunk to give consent. I fail to see your problem with this.

midlandsmissus

wexford96c wrote: »

Pray tell, how on earth is a person supposed to know that sex is consensual? As far as I am concerned - if the words STOP or NO aren't said - Sex is Consensual. Case Closed. Horny people can't read minds!!!!!!

I have found with some men, they take a 'no' as a 'yes if I keep at her and get her horny enough'. And then they keep at ya. Read alL the pick up artist bull****, it's scary what it teaches men, 'a woman will say no at first in order to not look like a slut, you need to get past this defense'. Its really bad. If men hear 'no' as 'oh yeah I need just a bit more persuasion', instead of d actual 'no I really don't want to' that is actually meant by the girl, how can we actually say no. I'm sure girls on here will identify with what I'm on about. Alot of men seem socially conditoned to not hear no as no.

up for anything

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Anyway, whatever limit is set will make illegal a hell of a lot of normal sexual activity on a saturday night. Or a Friday night. Or a Tuesday night for students.

Banning alcohol is the best way. Then people can continue on with their normal sexual activity although I'm guessing there would be a lot less of it.

Ghandee

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have found with some men, they take a 'no' as a 'yes .

I have also found that sometimes a womans no actually means yes, and vice versa.

example one. Me to my wife, "I'm getting a pizza love, want some?
Mrs Gucky says no, but when Pizza comes, she fcukin eats half of the small pizza I ordered fort myself!

Example 2. Is it ok if I have a few beers tonight hun? Mrs Gucky says yeah, but 7 pints later, silent treatment, have to sleep in spare bed, and no cuddles for a week.


Bad times:mad:

Kimia

Poor gucky, getting no cuddles.

WaltKowalski

Blowfish wrote: »

She pulled up her jeans and tried to leave the cubicle, but was dragged back in. That's a damn sight further than 'slight pushing away' of hands.

I don't get it at all. The 'victim' would have had two hands free - the 'guilty', one. Now, thankfully, I don't know how these situations work - but I'd have thought 2 should be able over power one.

dvpower

laugh wrote: »

Any pics of the nurse?

Nice

Blowfish

WaltKowalski wrote: »

I don't get it at all. The 'victim' would have had two hands free - the 'guilty', one. Now, thankfully, I don't know how these situations work - but I'd have thought 2 should be able over power one.

I'd also be far from an expert, but I'd presume there's also a psychological element involved. Everybody presumes they'd fight tooth and nail in these scenarios, I'm not sure the reality would match up to that.

Stinicker

My take on this as a man;

I think their sexuality is irrelevant or their sex for that matter, none of us would like to be violated by either sex if we did not feel like it. Because she is a woman does not give her a free pass Digital or not, if a Man digitally raped a woman it would a different story and she was detained as man would be, so at least consistency there by the Australians.

However there is alot of Xenophobia in Australia as I encountered first hand myself there while on Holidays there this summer. I stopped off for dinner in rural "Hotel" (which can mean just a bar in parts of Australia) anyway there was two Irish lads there working and once I heard the accents I said hello, grand fellas out there making a few bob, trying to fit in to the Aussie way of life.

Anyways I was in the cubicle in the jacks when the Irish lad came in for p1ss and he just said hello to a few others in there taking a p1ss also. After he left some of the things said about the Irish by the Aussies amongst themselves made my blood boil and they were real redneck types with a few older fellows amongst them.

There is xenophobia in Australia especially in the rural areas like this but overall the Australians are far better in regard to this than say the Americans or even ourselves for that matter.

It is not racism considering the Australians and Irish are the same race and alot of them are Irish to begin with. Racism would be me as a white discriminating against a black person or vice versa, Xenophobia is discrimination against outsiders of the same race.

To sum it up it says she came on a Criminal Charge visa, she should have stayed at home and left it feck off, when the statute of limitations ran out she could always return, but with something like that against her there I'd run and leave for good, now she is named and shamed in Ireland and Australia and won't get in anywhere else; best bet is lie low in England somewhere after a deed poll.

Quazzie

I know this girl really well. She is a loud drunk and very forward when she is, but I don't think she's capable of rape. From what I know of it the 'victim' was well up for it before her boyfriend freaked out and called the police. It all went downhill from there.

wexford96c

Quazzie wrote: »

I know this girl really well. She is a loud drunk and very forward when she is, but I don't think she's capable of rape. From what I know of it the 'victim' was well up for it before her boyfriend freaked out and called the police. It all went downhill from there.

I agree 100%. If she wasn't trying to convince him she didn't like it, there would have been no problem. This accused girl should go free. Juries are made up of the great unwashed, most of whom are too stupid to figure out guilt or lack of it.

Dudess

I agree a woman is capable of forcing a person - man or woman - to engage in sexual contact with them. However it doesn't help when the notion still seems to fly in the face of cultural norms, that a woman isn't capable of coercing someone, especially a man, into sex. And it doesn't help either when there's the "Shur aren't you lucky to be getting some?"/"Yeah right, a man being forced to have sex by a woman!" (if she's attractive) type posturing.

ringadingding

I also know the ' Rapist' well.
I also have a brother who is a copper in Dublin.

This is absolutely a drunken 'fumble' that ended badly, when the hubbie was told of what happened, nothing more. The ' Rapist' is a ' one of the lads' kinda girl, but if you knew the hotel, you'd know this kind of thing is veerrrrryyy common there.
Cocktails, few pills, few drunken fondles, hopefully score..........

I am shocked at the amount of false rape accusations my brother hears, actually hands on heart shocked, and im not shockable much.

last week, a lady in temple bar ( foreign, she'd never ever be on here) got pissed, hubbie was tired, he left her in a boozer, she met some guy, back to his, lost track of time, woke up at 8am, hubbie going mental, she claimed rape by GUNPOINT, he dragged her to gardai station, 6 armed officers raging around the place looking for a nutter, she swore blind that what happened. Husband informing family etc of how bad Ireland is, blah blah blah.
A copper turns up with a cctv dvd of her getting fingered on way back to hotel and waltzing off with the ' rapist' back to his hotel room. Shes shown the dvd and all of a sudden wants to just go home and forget about the charges.
Hubby and family and friends etc still assume she's been raped. Forever.

This kind of scenario happens waaayyyy too often, but what also happens waaayyyyy to often is girls getting ' hairy aped' and it going unreported.

Too much burying heads in sand, from both angles on this front that it's nearly impossible to prove things.

But a wife under pressure from an angry hubby can force you into all kinds of shi t e, With very little room for manouvere afterwards.

Ah, to sum up, i dunno.

Einhard

wexford96c wrote: »

I agree 100%. If she wasn't trying to convince him she didn't like it, there would have been no problem. This accused girl should go free. Juries are made up of the great unwashed, most of whom are too stupid to figure out guilt or lack of it.

What an absolutely mental statement to make. The findings of juries should be disregarded because of their plebian outlooks, and instead we should take direction on criminal matters from anonymous posters on the internet? I know this is AH and all, but that's absurd. Larry Murphy was convicted by a jury. So was Catherine Nevin. Obviously miscarriages of justice there. :rolleyes:

The attitude that some people here have about what constitutes consensual sex is pretty damn disturbing.

meglome

ringadingding wrote: »

This is absolutely a drunken 'fumble' that ended badly, when the hubbie was told of what happened, nothing more. The ' Rapist' is a ' one of the lads' kinda girl, but if you knew the hotel, you'd know this kind of thing is veerrrrryyy common there.
Cocktails, few pills, few drunken fondles, hopefully score..........

I know people do get attacked in toilets but this whole thing is off. The victim admits to kissing her for 3 minutes and not asking her to stop. From the information available in the press I can't see how she got convicted. Maybe there's something we're missing.

Gyalist

ringadingding wrote: »

But a wife under pressure from an angry hubby can force you into all kinds of shi t e, With very little room for manouvere afterwards.

Ah, to sum up, i dunno.

Two summers ago a good friend of mine was playing as a professional at a cricket club in north-west England. One Saturday night there was a club BBQ and the wife of a senior official of the club made a pass at my friend. She was at least a decade older than my friend who was in his early twenties at the time. Anyway the woman's husband left to go home and his wife stayed behind for a drink with my friend and others in a group. When he decided to leave for his flat, she offered to share a taxi with him. So they left together and at his flat had consensual sex.

However, the husband had called his wife's phone and she didn't answer so he drove back to the club to get her only to hear that she had left together with my friend. He tracked her down at the flat and after a huge confrontation, the police were called and my friend was eventually arrested on suspicion of rape. He spent about 3 months, firstly on remand and then on bail, before all charges were dropped and he was able to go home.

It is perfectly possible for a woman to consent to sex but then give another story to her partner when he finds out.

Ann22

Quazzie wrote: »

I know this girl really well. She is a loud drunk and very forward when she is, but I don't think she's capable of rape. From what I know of it the 'victim' was well up for it before her boyfriend freaked out and called the police. It all went downhill from there.

If she was 'well up for it' why was she visibly upset leaving the cubicle? And why did she tell her boyfriend at all?

And just because you 'know' this girl doesn't mean she's innocent of any wrong doing. How many rapists and murderers own family members don't know what they're capable of? She molested the other girl plain and simple. A 3min snog doesn't give anyone the right to prod about with your intimate areas. A man wouldn't get this deluge of defenders after doing the same thing.

Quazzie

Ann22 wrote: »

If she was 'well up for it' why was she visibly upset leaving the cubicle? And why did she tell her boyfriend at all?

There are two conflicting stories out there, and knowing the person as I do I tend to believe this one.

There are always two sides to every story

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

There are two conflicting stories out there, and knowing the person as I do I tend to believe this one.

There are always two sides to every story

Just like those men down in Kerry last year, knowing the rapist as they did, filed up to him in court after his conviction and, in front of the woman he had raped, shook his hand and commiserated eh? Someone is convicted of rape by a jury of their peers, but you know them personally so they couldn't possibly have done it! The mind boggles. With attitudes like yours it's little wonder that the rates for both the reporting and conviction of rape is so dismally low in this country.

ScumLord

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have found with some men, they take a 'no' as a 'yes if I keep at her and get her horny enough'. And then they keep at ya. Read alL the pick up artist bull****, it's scary what it teaches men, 'a woman will say no at first in order to not look like a slut, you need to get past this defense'. Its really bad. If men hear 'no' as 'oh yeah I need just a bit more persuasion',

But isn't that basically the plot of every chick flick out there?

Guys an ass, he keeps at it, does something worse, keeps at it eventually she breaks down and rides him.

Wompa1

ScumLord wrote: »

But isn't that basically the plot of every chick flick out there?

Guys an ass, he keeps at it, does something worse, keeps at it eventually she breaks down and rides him.

And it's ooohhh so romantic.

Quazzie

Einhard wrote: »

Just like those men down in Kerry last year, knowing the rapist as they did, filed up to him in court after his conviction and, in front of the woman he had raped, shook his hand and commiserated eh? Someone is convicted of rape by a jury of their peers, but you know them personally so they couldn't possibly have done it! The mind boggles. With attitudes like yours it's little wonder that the rates for both the reporting and conviction of rape is so dismally low in this country.

Oh FFS. Read the last line of my post. Every situation is different and I happen to know a bit more about this one than others. If you want to think that I'm the scurge of the nation and the reason for rapists walking free then so be it but I'd suggest you do a bit more looking into it before you finish on that thought.

Einhard

Gyalist wrote: »

Two summers ago a good friend of mine was playing as a professional at a cricket club in north-west England. One Saturday night there was a club BBQ and the wife of a senior official of the club made a pass at my friend. She was at least a decade older than my friend who was in his early twenties at the time. Anyway the woman's husband left to go home and his wife stayed behind for a drink with my friend and others in a group. When he decided to leave for his flat, she offered to share a taxi with him. So they left together and at his flat had consensual sex.

However, the husband had called his wife's phone and she didn't answer so he drove back to the club to get her only to hear that she had left together with my friend. He tracked her down at the flat and after a huge confrontation, the police were called and my friend was eventually arrested on suspicion of rape. He spent about 3 months, firstly on remand and then on bail, before all charges were dropped and he was able to go home.

So, he was falsely accused, and the truth won out in the end? Justice prevails and all that. Whereas, in this case, the woman was tried before an impartial jury of her peers and found guilty. I don't really see hw the two can be compared. Why is it that the findings of juries in cases of rape and sexual assault are always debated and disputed, yet there is no such reaction when they find against defendants in the murder cases or the like? People here are dragging up instances of false accusations of rape and related injustices as a means to cast doubt on the conviction, yet no one does so when it comes to murder and the like. A man had his conviction overturned for manslaughter after 3 decades last week; will people bring up the injustice of his case after every murder trial to cast doubt on the process? Unlikely really. But when it comes to rape trials there's no such misgivings- I know the person, he/she's not a rapist; the girl was asking for it; she never explicitly said no; I know someone who was falsely accused of rape...As I said, with such attitudes, where the victim has to fight not just the assailant but an often hostile public gallery, no wonder rape is such an underreported crime in this country.

Einhard

Quazzie wrote: »

Oh FFS. Read the last line of my post. Every situation is different and I happen to know a bit more about this one than others. If you want to think that I'm the scurge of the nation and the reason for rapists walking free then so be it but I'd suggest you do a bit more looking into it before you finish on that thought.

No, you don't happen to know a bit more about his incident. Were you Australia at the time? Were you in the bloody cubicle? So how on earth could you possibly know more about the incident? You know the assailant. That's it. And if every rape trial was to be decided on the character testomony of those who knew the accused, then no one would ever be convicted. Do you think that rapists go around with their c*cks hanging out of trenchcoats, that when they're convicted everyone thinks "Ah shur, everyone knew that lad was a rapist"?! Of course not. The notion is absurd. The vast majority of rape and sexual assault are carried out by people who are as ordinary and unremarked upon as you and me. They don't exhibit predatory tendencies that people can acknowledge in hindsight. There are priests in prison or convicted in this country whose parishoners were horrified at the thought that they could have abused children. A case a few years back in my locality saw an eminently respectable family man plead guilty to the rape of a girl. No one thought it was in his character, and perhaps it would never have happened were he not drunk on the night; but, by your way of seeing things, he would never have been convicted, because those who knew him didn't think he was capable of doing what he did. It was only the victim's courage and, admittedly, his own shame and subsequent guilty plea, which saw justice prevail.

So, forgive me, in the light of the character of rapists and abusers, if I scoff at the notion that personal acquaintance should trump impartial analysis of the facts by a jury. And forgive me if I think that your kind of thinking os one of the reasons why Ireland is such a cold house for victims of rape and abuse.

Interceptor

I know this thread went all serious and stuff but I'm still LOL'ing at the term 'digital rape'. What next - bellybutton rape?

'cptr