Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Medical student assaults girlfriend

123457»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    "Ritually" ????

    Yes, ritually. After punching and kicking her, he pushed her onto a bed, stood over her and deliberately poured Coke over her hair, her body and her clothes. What, do you think he did that accidentally or something? Maybe his foot slipped too.

    Do you honestly think that his actions (the punching, the kicking, the Coke-pouring and the chasing from room to room, etc) were all just the result of an argument getting out of hand? Seriously, is that what you think?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Unlikely. She's seen what happens and how her instigating a fight gets defended, excused and swept under the rug.

    What do you have against women? Why do you diminish violent crimes against women? This isn't the only time you've done it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Chrongen wrote: »
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chrongen View Post
    The fact that the case has been adjourned until next April I think would suggest this.

    I'm guessing that his lawyer has told him to have her refuse to cooperate and in turn to enter into a pleas whereby the case is adjourned contemplating dismissal.

    I could be wildly off the mark here. Was she in court giving evidence?

    I read the newspaper article. It makes no mention of her being in court to give evidence.

    It was adjourned for sentencing.

    He admitted everything.

    She wasn't in court, there was no need.

    What report did you read? All your guessing and questions are answered in every report Ive read.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    You're just feeding it folks.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Hoboo wrote: »
    It was adjourned for sentencing.

    He admitted everything.

    She wasn't in court, there was no need.

    What report did you read? All your guessing and questions are answered in every report Ive read.

    I only read the newspaper article. So if he pled guilty to the charge(s) then are you saying that he now carries an assault conviction and what is the minimum sentencing for that?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    Unlikely. She's seen what happens and how her instigating a fight gets defended, excused and swept under the rug.

    What do you have against women? Why do you diminish violent crimes against women? This isn't the only time you've done it.

    I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one. I was raised by a strong woman- married to my dad.

    I have a problem with people - male or female - treating women like we are different. We're not. We're people, we're equal. If we start a fight then we have to accept that it may go south.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one.

    Course you are :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one.

    Course you are :rolleyes:

    Oh ffs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM


    I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one. I was raised by a strong woman- married to my dad.

    I have a problem with people - male or female - treating women like we are different. We're not. We're people, we're equal. If we start a fight then we have to accept that it may go south.

    For the sake of avoiding a pointless argument, I'll take your claim that you are a woman at face value. Also, maybe all the people who say you seem to have something against women (despite definitely being one) are somehow all misinterpreting loads of your posts. :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,690 ✭✭✭✭Skylinehead


    Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

    Mod: Don't post in this thread again. You're way too much effort.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    Unlikely. She's seen what happens and how her instigating a fight gets defended, excused and swept under the rug.

    The only person defending/excusing anything here is you??

    There is no justification to following someone about the house attacking them?

    FFS....your man what done it deosnt even agree with you??


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    RayM wrote: »
    I know this is going to be thrown back at me in seconds but I have nothing against women. I am one. I was raised by a strong woman- married to my dad.

    I have a problem with people - male or female - treating women like we are different. We're not. We're people, we're equal. If we start a fight then we have to accept that it may go south.

    For the sake of avoiding a pointless argument, I'll take your claim that you are a woman at face value. Also, maybe all the people who say you seem to have something against women (despite definitely being one) are somehow all misinterpreting loads of your posts. :confused:

    Thank you.

    No they're not. But they're misinterpreting my overall meaning.

    We're not unequal. We never have been. We may have been treated as such by society in the past of course. But society changed. I'm concerned for the next generations of women that it's changed too far the other way.

    I've been treated like a person with valid opinions by men. I've worked in what would be considered traditionally male industries with no issues.

    I currently work with a largely female group. I'm considered wierd by them because I'm interested in sports, have zero interest in kids, make up, "boys" or the usual.

    I'm not anti women. I'm anti what the younger generation seem to want us to be.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    Oh please. I swear feminists are going to send us back to the 1800s. I can feel the vapours starting.

    Mod: Don't post in this thread again. You're way too much effort.

    I posted before I saw this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,401 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Thank you.

    No they're not. But they're misinterpreting my overall meaning.

    We're not unequal. We never have been. We may have been treated as such by society in the past of course. But society changed. I'm concerned for the next generations of women that it's changed too far the other way.

    I've been treated like a person with valid opinions by men. I've worked in what would be considered traditionally male industries with no issues.

    I currently work with a largely female group. I'm considered wierd by them because I'm interested in sports, have zero interest in kids, make up, "boys" or the usual.

    I'm not anti women. I'm anti what the younger generation seem to want us to be.

    Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not why you are considered weird..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,898 ✭✭✭✭Ken.


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    Yeah I'm pretty sure that's not why you are considered weird..

    Mod-Peter is thread banned. Please don't quote him/her as they can't reply


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,039 ✭✭✭✭retro:electro


    Jaysus. Depressing read those lads few pages.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,526 ✭✭✭Sweetemotion


    For what it's worth, I don't see why you all think PeterParker hates women.

    You's must be best pleased with yourselves after that gang up.

    Well done.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    No they're not. But they're misinterpreting my overall meaning.

    We're not unequal. We never have been. We may have been treated as such by society in the past of course. But society changed. I'm concerned for the next generations of women that it's changed too far the other way.

    I've been treated like a person with valid opinions by men. I've worked in what would be considered traditionally male industries with no issues.

    I currently work with a largely female group. I'm considered wierd by them because I'm interested in sports, have zero interest in kids, make up, "boys" or the usual.

    I'm not anti women. I'm anti what the younger generation seem to want us to be.


    All of this is irrelevant, this is not a men v women issue. The attack was reprehensible, it would also be reprehensible if it was an attack on a man. I dare say people would also condemn him if he carried out the same attack on an animal.

    You brought up feminism out of nowhere, because you have a bee in your bonnet about feminism. As a side note, I'll add that society did not just change on it's own, to make women equal, feminism pushed society to change, you benefit from that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    For what it's worth, I don't see why you all think PeterParker hates women.

    You's must be best pleased with yourselves after that gang up.

    Well done.


    Don't leave me out.

    I was accused of misogyny for asserting that a murderess belonged in prison.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Chrongen wrote: »
    I only read the newspaper article. So if he pled guilty to the charge(s) then are you saying that he now carries an assault conviction and what is the minimum sentencing for that?

    Case has been adjourned for sentencing. Has been ordered to pay compensation in the meantime and he will be 'treated fairly'. We'll have to wait until May to hear the decision.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hoboo wrote: »
    She wasn't required to give evidence in the dock. The facts, including that she slapped him, were presented by a Garda. She wasn't even in the courtroom. Ill presume you didn't bother reading any reports.

    Um. I'm thinking you don't really know how these things work.

    There is no requirement for her to be in Court to give evidence, that's kinda part of the point of a guilty plea, it dispenses with the need to bring in witnesses hence it results in a reduced penalty.

    And the Garda does not presents facts in the sense of some distilled truth. S/he gives their brief summary of the matter, usually choreographed in advance with the defence team, again as the quid pro quo for a guilty plea.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Did he complain? Is there some suggestion............ that they questioned her about the food-pushing aspect, or the slap?

    Sure if he didn't regard himself as having been assaulted, and she wasn't charged with assault, the issue is all very moot. Isn't it? You say "she did after all slap him". I'm not sure that was ever put to her in the case at all. We can't make any presumptions about her conduct, she wasn't in the dock.

    Um. I'm thinking you don't really know how these things work.

    There is no requirement for her to be in Court to give evidence, that's kinda part of the point of a guilty plea, it dispenses with the need to bring in witnesses hence it results in a reduced penalty.

    And the Garda does not presents facts in the sense of some distilled truth. S/he gives their brief summary of the matter, usually choreographed in advance with the defence team, again as the quid pro quo for a guilty plea.

    Jesus wept, I never said she was required to be in court? I was answering to your post above which again made no sense whatsoever.

    You're not sure it was ever put to her or she was questioned about what happened? Really? You think she wasn't asked about the slap or any of the incident because he pleaded guilty and admitted everything. Wow.

    Garda Stuart Byrne presented the facts to the court, call it a brief summary if thats what they call it on Suits or wherever you get your information, but he presented the facts. He didn't present the defence or prosecution. He presented the facts. Fact.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hoboo wrote: »
    Jesus wept, I never said she was required to be in court? I was answering to your post above which again made no sense whatsoever.

    You're not sure it was ever put to her or she was questioned about what happened? Really? You think she wasn't asked about the slap or any of the incident because he pleaded guilty and admitted everything. Wow.

    Garda Stuart Byrne presented the facts to the court, call it a brief summary if thats what they call it on Suits or wherever you get your information, but he presented the facts. He didn't present the defence or prosecution. He presented the facts. Fact.

    Call it the knowledge that 20 years of court work brings.

    You don't have the slightest clue of how cases are run. The more you post, the more this becomes apparent.

    She wasn't there to give evidence. There was no analysis of her conduct. And I have already explained the role of the Garda, you saying "they give the facts...the facts...the FACTS" doesn't change their role. Incidentally the Garda is absolutely there on behalf of the prosecution, that's fairly basic stuff in the adversarial system.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,270 ✭✭✭clairewithani


    To me it doesn't matter what gender anyone was/is. The person who pushes food into someone else's face is absolutely wrong. But a person who takes someone from behind, kicks them repeatedly, empties a can over them and tried to break down a locked door to get at them is scum.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Call it the knowledge that 20 years of court work brings.

    You don't have the slightest clue of how cases are run. The more you post, the more this becomes apparent.

    She wasn't there to give evidence. There was no analysis of her conduct. And I have already explained the role of the Garda, you saying "they give the facts...the facts...the FACTS" doesn't change their role. Incidentally the Garda is absolutely there on behalf of the prosecution, that's fairly basic stuff in the adversarial system.

    Prison escort? Porter? Cleaner? If you don't understand the importance of fact in law, 20 years experience working in a building means squat. The report in the paper quotes the Garda giving the facts of the case. Not a 'brief summary'. As you will know, from 20 years experience :D, a judge never deals in brief summaries, s/he deals with facts and facts only. No time for jackonorey, no matter how brief. Facts only. No avoiding that one. Fairly basic stuff as you'd say.

    She wasn't there to give evidence, we all know that, and there was no analysis of her conduct......in court or the report. I NEVER said there was! She wasn't required to give evidence. But to say she was never asked what happened by the Gardai after the event is simply ridiculous. Its beyond ridiculous. No it wasn't reported, but does it need to be reported in the paper to understand she would have been questioned, for the facts. You're digging holes here.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hoboo wrote: »
    As you will know, from 20 years experience :D, a judge never deals in brief summaries, s/he deals with facts and facts only. No time for jackonorey, no matter how brief. Facts only. No avoiding that one. Fairly basic stuff as you'd say.

    Not an iota.

    But look, if you think a Garda giving evidence of an incident amounts to objective fact, clearly I won't change your mind. And we are both happy, you with your unquestioning trust in Garda infallibilty, and me amused at your complete misunderstanding of the procedures in criminal cases and the roles of the parties.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Not an iota.

    But look, if you think a Garda giving evidence of an incident amounts to objective fact, clearly I won't change your mind. And we are both happy, you with your unquestioning trust in Garda infallibilty, and me amused at your complete misunderstanding of the procedures in criminal cases and the roles of the parties.


    There you go again! I never once said a Garda giving evidence amounts to objective fact. Keep digging.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,080 ✭✭✭Don Kiddick


    Hoboo wrote: »
    There you go again! I never once said a Garda giving evidence amounts to objective fact. Keep digging.

    Wasn't even a ninja edit :rolleyes:


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hoboo wrote: »
    There you go again! I never once said a Garda giving evidence amounts to objective fact. Keep digging.

    Ok, I'm a nice guy and I'll give you a brief overview.

    When a person pleads guilty to assault, the victim need not be there, there is no need to give evidence. The Garda (who is there as part of the Prosecution and not some arbiter of fact) is asked to outline the matter. The word "facts" is simply used as shorthand to distinguish that evidence from opinion. Of course they are not established facts at all, and certainly not your belief that "because the Garda said it, it happened" or "fact...facts...FACTS" :D. Indeed very often that evidence will contain incorrect assertions, the Garda will go easy as it's been arranged with the defence lawyers beforehand. Not some big conspiracy, a one minute chat in which the Garda will say "well if he's pleading guilty, I won't remember his previous convictions" etc. The Garda is very much there as part of the prosecution but s/he will usually be pragmatic too.

    If the assertion is made that the victim committed an assault, a lot of Judges will very sharply remind everyone that the victim is not on trial and not represented and it's a very dangerous road to go down. What you have done is take some remark made by the Garda as establishing that she committed an assault. You completely miss the point of a trial, it is an examination of the conduct of the accused. She did not have the chance to rebut that comment and most obviously it was not subject to the ultimate test of the veracity of any evidence, the cross exam. It's pretty worthless really, nothing turns on it, and not too much should be inferred from it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Ok, I'm a nice guy and I'll give you a brief overview.

    When a person pleads guilty to assault, the victim need not be there, there is no need to give evidence. The Garda (who is there as part of the Prosecution and not some arbiter of fact) is asked to outline the matter. The word "facts" is simply used as shorthand to distinguish that evidence from opinion. Of course they are not established facts at all, and certainly not your belief that "because the Garda said it, it happened" or "fact...facts...FACTS" :D. Indeed very often that evidence will contain incorrect assertions, the Garda will go easy as it's been arranged with the defence lawyers beforehand. Not some big conspiracy, a one minute chat in which the Garda will say "well if he's pleading guilty, I won't remember his previous convictions" etc. The Garda is very much there as part of the prosecution but s/he will usually be pragmatic too.

    If the assertion is made that the victim committed an assault, a lot of Judges will very sharply remind everyone that the victim is not on trial and not represented and it's a very dangerous road to go down. What you have done is take some remark made by the Garda as establishing that she committed an assault. You completely miss the point of a trial, it is an examination of the conduct of the accused. She did not have the chance to rebut that comment and most obviously it was not subject to the ultimate test of the veracity of any evidence, the cross exam. It's pretty worthless really, nothing turns on it, and not too much should be inferred from it.

    :D What in the hell are you talking about? Not sure why you bothered with all that..........as a matter of interest when did I ever take a remark made by a Garda to establish she committed an assault?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Genuinely, what are ye arguing about? I've read the whole exchange and while ye both seem very motivated to express your disagreement with each other, I actually can't figure out what exactly yere disagreeing on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,592 ✭✭✭Hoboo


    Genuinely, what are ye arguing about? I've read the whole exchange and while ye both seem very motivated to express your disagreement with each other, I actually can't figure out what exactly yere disagreeing on.

    Back to the very start.

    Conor said: 'We can't make any presumptions about her conduct, she wasn't in the dock. She wasn't required to give evidence in the dock.'

    I replied: 'The facts, including that she slapped him, were presented by a Garda. She wasn't even in the courtroom. Ill presume you didn't bother reading any reports.'

    The Garda, in the courtroom said she slapped him. So no presumptions made, thats what was stated by the Garda. She was also not in the courtroom, never mind the dock. My last comment may have been inflammatory, for which I apologise.

    The rest is history. Virtual shake hands and move on from me :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 122 ✭✭fiachraX


    This doesn't sound like the kind of person anyone would want as their doctor:
    https://twitter.com/RayConnellan40/status/937286461430177792


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭Pero_Bueno


    He should counter sue her for the take away in the face ...



    edit though after reading further into it and if those tweets are genuine he sounds like a right c*nt ..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    Yeah he really does not seem like a guy who'll be good as gold from now on. A message of "if you can pay for this with money you don't have to pay for it other ways" seems like a very stupid message to send to him.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,092 ✭✭✭Doc07


    'This doesn't sound like the kind of person anyone would want as their doctor:'

    Just to reassure anyone who doesn't know;
    He IS NOT a medical student and therefore WILL NOT be a doctor.
    I know I should just ignore it and get on with my sad little life but the article title is really annoying me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Went back and took a look at the first few pages of the "(female) oxford university student avoids jail thread for stabbing bf in unprovoked attack" thread.

    Its interesting how posters that are all over this thread in outrage are glaringly absent from that one*.
    And of that core of members that did post they aren't bothering to condemn the incident and the trivial sentencing simply debating factors in sentencing, its all very calm.

    I think RayM's post stands out though as an example of the type of the way a subset of posters are very selective in their moral outrage over incidents.

    First post in this thread.
    RayM wrote: »
    Nothing on After Hours surprises me anymore.

    First page post in the other thread is a joke
    RayM wrote: »
    I don't see why not.

    e353d117d64fe4e1689066abf64e2840.gif

    Yes nothing in AH does surprise me anymore either.

    PS your man should get jail time loosing control to that level of violence is a serious thing, (its not that surprising he didn't plenty of more harmful assaults occur in Dublin every week that don't lead to jail- doesn't excuse it though) she should maybe get a caution (for the very first part of the incident as she did strike him first)

    * I will get the "other jurisdictions" thing but at least a good few posters are actually uk based/background


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,066 ✭✭✭Vic_08


    Went back and took a look at the first few pages of the "(female) oxford university student avoids jail thread for stabbing bf in unprovoked attack" thread.

    Its interesting how posters that are all over this thread in outrage are glaringly absent from that one*.

    Is there now a rule that requires posting in specific threads?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Vic_08 wrote: »
    Is there now a rule that requires posting in specific threads?

    No but it's interesting the absence of certain posters and the response of those that did, particularly the one making a joke on the first page of a thread about a similar but more serious incident than this one.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭backspin.


    No but it's interesting the absence of certain posters and the response of those that did, particularly the one making a joke on the first page of a thread about a similar but more serious incident than this one.

    Agenda driven you'll find.


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Yes nothing in AH does surprise me anymore either.

    This being a prime example...
    Went back and took a look at the first few pages of the "(female) oxford university student avoids jail thread for stabbing bf in unprovoked attack" thread.

    Its interesting how posters that are all over this thread in outrage are glaringly absent from that one*.

    You drew conclusions from looking at "the first few pages" of another thread and seeing who didn't post? Your contribution is based, at least partially, on what wasn't said in a subset of posts from another thread?

    That's kinda ridiculous. Maybe someone was walking the dog or sick with the flu.

    Did you post on the Oxford student stabbing thread, cross checking it with the assault on Maynooth student thread or street performer loses an eye in unprovoked attack thread or Garda avoids jail for attacking 2 women thread and draw any conclusions?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    Doc07 wrote:
    Just to reassure anyone who doesn't know; He IS NOT a medical student and therefore WILL NOT be a doctor. I know I should just ignore it and get on with my sad little life but the article title is really annoying me.

    I don't understand? It says he studied medicine in TCD and is now doing a post grad. What is he so?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,973 ✭✭✭RayM



    I think RayM's post stands out though as an example of the type of the way a subset of posters are very selective in their moral outrage over incidents.

    First post in this thread.



    First page post in the other thread is a joke



    Yes nothing in AH does surprise me anymore either.

    Someone posted a joke? What? On After Hours? That is shocking. You should have reported the post at the time - joking on After Hours is absolutely not on and I humbly apologise. Maybe you should report it anyway, retrospectively. Maybe I should hand myself in.


Advertisement