Harsh sentence

yourdeadwright

bcklschaps wrote: »

Are you for real ?? you actually made me laugh out loud

Maybe if I'm recruiting an enforcer for my brothel or something .....to keep them bitches in check


The fact that you call it the "building game" tells me you don't work in construction and don't know anything about it....soo you might want to stop right there with that line of codology

Just as an example to you ,there is a certain well know south Dublin solicitor who is an ex con crimes such as head of operation's for the IRA,

To say ex cons can't find work is simply not true, there are so many variables like what crime you committed, the circumstance around it and what jobs your going for ,

Feisar

Grayson wrote: »

So you think that it should be legal to find someone who's drunk and passed out, and undress them so you can have a look at their genitals?

Deffo not, I'd be raging if I was weighed, measured and found wanting while passed out. Hardly fair since I wouldn't be giving an accurate account of myself.

Feisar

Something very similar has happened to me in the past, drunken man hopped into my bed and grabbed my by the penis/scrotum. I reacted strongly and told him to GTFO. That was the end of it, to me it didn't warrent being taken further. Maybe lads are different though?

martingriff

GreeBo wrote: »

Sorry but, what?

Is this really where we are as a society?

My wife kissed me on the back of the head this morning when she came up behind me, sexual assault in your eyes no doubt.

#metoo

Kissing you on the head does not equal going into bed and shoving your hand in someone's vagina.

As others I feel there is more to this story

sbsquarepants

martingriff wrote: »

As others I feel there is more to this story

I reckon the woman waiving her right to anonymity so he could also be telling.

I don't buy the drunken mistake excuse whatsoever.

Boggles

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just as an example to you ,there is a certain well know south Dublin solicitor who is an ex con crimes such as head of operation's for the IRA,

To say ex cons can't find work is simply not true, there are so many variables like what crime you committed, the circumstance around it and what jobs your going for ,

Kieran Conway?

That's hardly the same thing, is it?

Martin McGuinness was Deputy First Minister of a country.

Nobody is saying having a criminal conviction means you can never work again, it does mean without doubt that you cannot work in certain areas, and yes that even includes some aspects of even construction.

Actually it doesn't really matter what the job is, if they are privy to the fact that you have a sexual assault conviction, chances are the guy that interviewed before who doesn't, gets the job.

Gbear

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah but he didn’t trip and fall into fondling her vagina. His only defence was he forced himself on the wrong person, plus he showed no remorse.

Are you trying to argue he should be guilty of sexual assault even if it was his fiancée? While it might be, it's highly unlikely, and something that is completely acceptable in most relationships unless there is an unusual dynamic between them with regards to initiating sex and physical contact (which would have to be established).

If it was an accident, then there's no reason why he ought to show remorse, so that shouldn't have any bearing on determining guilt or on sentencing in and of itself.

retro:electro

Gbear wrote: »

Are you trying to argue he should be guilty of sexual assault even if it was his fiancée?.

That would be up to her to decide if she wanted to report on if she felt violated enough. The amount of men that need to be told in black and white that helping yourself to a sleeping woman’s genitals is unacceptable and violating is quite remarkable. Why you’d even want to us another question.

yourdeadwright

Boggles wrote: »

Kieran Conway?

That's hardly the same thing, is it?

Martin McGuinness was Deputy First Minister of a country.

Nobody is saying having a criminal conviction means you can never work again, it does mean without doubt that you cannot work in certain areas, and yes that even includes some aspects of even construction.

Actually it doesn't really matter what the job is, if they are privy to the fact that you have a sexual assault conviction, chances are the guy that interviewed before who doesn't, gets the job.

Your talking sense but someone else on the tread said he would never work in this country again because he went to prison , I was simply pointing out that is not the case ,

Many ex cons currently work in Ireland I just giving an example of one everyone would know off the top off my head,

Even as a taxi man he is not automatically disqualified with the conviction he got , although he may not get his licence back ,

He will certainly be able to work again in this country but of course it depends on the job ,

Boggles

Gbear wrote: »

If it was an accident, then there's no reason why he ought to show remorse, so that shouldn't have any bearing on determining guilt or on sentencing in and of itself.

Showing remorse or contriteness absolutely plays a factor when a Judge is determining a sentence. Whether it should or not is probably a different argument.

The reason he got a custodial sentence was because he didn't act contrite, IMO.

The question is, why didn't he?

I understand fully why he plead not guilty, but he could have also acted remorseful at least.

Any Barrister that is not a simpleton would have made sure he did.

He had contempt towards Ms. Powers. Why was that?

I imagine the answer is contained in events after that night.

eviltwin

Gbear wrote: »

Are you trying to argue he should be guilty of sexual assault even if it was his fiancée? While it might be, it's highly unlikely, and something that is completely acceptable in most relationships unless there is an unusual dynamic between them with regards to initiating sex and physical contact (which would have to be established).

If it was an accident, then there's no reason why he ought to show remorse, so that shouldn't have any bearing on determining guilt or on sentencing in and of itself.

If I did something, even unintentionally, that caused hurt and distress to another person I'd feel remorse. That doesn't imply guilt, it's just an acknowledgement your actions caused harm. In this case it's his fiancee and a long term friend who have been affected, it's very strange he's not remorseful TBH.

jimgoose

Gbear wrote: »

...If it was an accident, then there's no reason why he ought to show remorse, so that shouldn't have any bearing on determining guilt or on sentencing in and of itself.

He absolutely should feel, and show, remorse. Something like that should absolutely mortify a normal person.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

GreeBo wrote: »

And this is where we fundamentally disagree.
You are implying that almost every interaction is on the sexual assault spectrum, from the kissing your partner without consent, all the way up to rape.

If everything is sexual assault then arguably nothing is, which is clearly not true.

Sexual assault used to mean something to most people, now you have no idea if someone was raped or someone tried to pick them up in a club.

It demeans the term and is totally counterproductive.

"another silly example"?
I was replying to the poster who said touching your wife in their sleep is a sexual assault.

I'm not dismissing any type of assault, on the contrary I'm trying to highlight sexual assault, by removing all the other nonsense that is clearly not an assault.
I dont know why you are trying to paint me as someone who excuses sexual assaults, I'd like it if you could argue against the post and not get personal, thanks so much.

Just to be clear, you don’t think the bolded is assault? I’m trying to get a handle on your thought process.

begbysback

If ever a thread induced purchasing of a bag of popcorn then it’s this one - please proceed

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gbear wrote: »

Are you trying to argue he should be guilty of sexual assault even if it was his fiancée? While it might be, it's highly unlikely, and something that is completely acceptable in most relationships unless there is an unusual dynamic between them with regards to initiating sex and physical contact (which would have to be established).

If it was an accident, then there's no reason why he ought to show remorse, so that shouldn't have any bearing on determining guilt or on sentencing in and of itself.

eviltwin wrote: »

If I did something, even unintentionally, that caused hurt and distress to another person I'd feel remorse. That doesn't imply guilt, it's just an acknowledgement your actions caused harm. In this case it's his fiancee and a long term friend who have been affected, it's very strange he's not remorseful TBH.

+1 If I upset or caused pain to someone accidentally, damn straight I’d feel remorseful. Especially if it was a friend. It is odd to express no remorse. Did he think showing remorse would imply guilt?

Perifect

This thread is quite worrying and shows that some men just don't get it! You cannot go around feeling women up if they don't want you to. It is sexual assault, there is no defence. I think some men are thinking to themselves, I wouldn't mind if a woman did that to me, what's the problem? Now think what would you feel like if a man jumped into bed with you and had a feel without your consent.

Gbear

eviltwin wrote: »

If I did something, even unintentionally, that caused hurt and distress to another person I'd feel remorse. That doesn't imply guilt, it's just an acknowledgement your actions caused harm. In this case it's his fiancee and a long term friend who have been affected, it's very strange he's not remorseful TBH.

So would I, but I don't think there's a moral imperative to do so.

retro:electro wrote: »

That would be up to her to decide if she wanted to report on if she felt violated enough. The amount of men that need to be told in black and white that helping yourself to a sleeping woman’s genitals is unacceptable and violating is quite remarkable. Why you’d even want to us another question.

It's obtuse and intellectually dishonest to suggest that there's no difference between how you physically interact with a random person and someone you're in a relationship with.

It's unreasonable and illegal to go up to someone and slap their arse, or hug them from behind, or kiss them on the head or pretty much touch them in any way, but that doesn't apply for someone in a relationship, and that's not a man thing. It's a people thing. Couples touch each other and they don't ask permission explicitly every time, nor should they be expected to. It's part of the same sorts of understanding that means you don't have them arrested for following you around, or being in your house, that would apply to a stranger.

Like I said, it could be sexual assault.
For all we know, the fiancée told the court that she had previously told her boyfriend off for doing stuff like this to her, at which point there would be explicit denial of consent for the action, but that's not part of the discussion here.

We're left having to trust that the judgement was made on reasonable grounds, and that the article in question is being somewhat economical with the truth to paint a particular version of events, but the grounds that we see certainly aren't that.

eviltwin

Carlo Alberto wrote: »

What is the benefit of putting him in prison if indeed it was a mistake?

Also, where is the line drawn with regard consent and body contact, should it be legal to touch someone on the shoulder without their consent for example,what about the thigh or knee?

A bit of common sense wouldn't go amiss on this thread.
It should be obvious we are discussing touching someone in an intimate area.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gbear wrote: »

So would I, but I don't think there's a moral imperative to do so.



It's obtuse and intellectually dishonest to suggest that there's no difference between how you physically interact with a random person and someone you're in a relationship with.

It's unreasonable and illegal to go up to someone and slap their arse, or hug them from behind, or kiss them on the head or pretty much touch them in any way, but that doesn't apply for someone in a relationship, and that's not a man thing. It's a people thing. Couples touch each other and they don't ask permission explicitly every time, nor should they be expected to. It's part of the same sorts of understanding that means you don't have them arrested for following you around, or being in your house, that would apply to a stranger.

Like I said, it could be sexual assault.
For all we know, the fiancée told the court that she had previously told her boyfriend off for doing stuff like this to her, at which point there would be explicit denial of consent for the action, but that's not part of the discussion here.

We're left having to trust that the judgement was made on reasonable grounds, and that the article in question is being somewhat economical with the truth to paint a particular version of events, but the grounds that we see certainly aren't that.

Sometimes there’s no difference. A close friend of mine dumped a newish boyfriend (not brand new, maybe six months in or so) because she awoke one morning to find him fondling her intimately. Relationship over. She (and we, her friends) was repulsed. In this case, I see no difference in the detail of whether they were in a relationship or not. She felt violated. Full stop.

jimgoose

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Just to be clear, you don’t think the bolded is assault? I’m trying to get a handle on your thought process.

The article described the woman in question as "falling asleep" at the time. All I'm saying is, as far as my own experience goes it is not unreasonable to clamber into bed with the woman you usually sleep with after drinking with her for the evening and touching her intimately but affectionately. This of course assumes that the chap actually did make a genuine mistake, which I'm not quite convinced of. Like other posters, I think there's more to this.

CalamariFritti

I think it’s crazy harsh. There must be more to this. He must have been a total dick after the incident or in court or the judge didn't buy the 'accident' or something.

From what little is in the article they make it sound like the guy ended up in the wrong room and accidentally felt her up. It’s not like when she jumped out of bed he continued or forced himself or anything. At least not in the info we have. Sounds like a genuine mistake on the surface.
And people who think based on the info we have that the sentence is appropriate are crazy. IMO.

But contrary to popular believe judges do have some braincells, too. So I'd say there is more to this.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

jimgoose wrote: »

The article described the woman in question as "falling asleep" at the time. All I'm saying is, as far as my own experience goes it is not unreasonable to clamber into bed with the woman you usually sleep with after drinking with her for the evening and touching her intimately but affectionately. This of course assumes that the chap actually did make a genuine mistake, which I'm not quite convinced of. Like other posters, I think there's more to this.

I’m clearly not talking about the article in the post of mine that you quoted. Gbear made a more general comment about somebody saying that touching your partner in their sleep (note: not “falling asleep”, “in their sleep”) was assault. I’m trying to clarify what Gbear thinks. Because, to me, there’s a difference between getting in beside your partner when they are drifting off but still awake and doing stuff to them when they are completely asleep.

Gbear

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sometimes there’s no difference. A close friend of mine dumped a newish boyfriend (not brand new, maybe six months in or so) because she awoke one morning to find him fondling her intimately. Relationship over. She (and we, her friends) was repulsed. In this case, I see no difference in the detail of whether they were in a relationship or not. She felt violated. Full stop.

I wouldn't for a minute suggest that women don't have the right to determine who can touch their body, including a boyfriend or husband, but what you would expect from a long term relationship is that there would be sufficient trust, intimate knowledge and physical shorthand that it wouldn't necessarily be an issue.

For a new relationship, that's a lot dicier. It might be making sure they're ok with you holding their hand on a first date, but that's not what you'd expect later on, and that spectrum would shift further along, depending on your mutual understanding and boundaries set up, the further it gets into a relationship.

I certainly wouldn't say your friend is wrong in your case. I don't know the details and it would be wrong to give a moral pronouncement on it one way or the other, much less determine criminality.

The point is not that there's no way him touching his girlfriend intimately is wrong, but that it's not possible to determine without knowing the ins and outs of their relationship, and further, that it's debatable about whether it should be a criminal matter, depending on how explicit the communcations are with regards to it, frequency of occurence (ie, if you did something sexual once your partner didn't like then they've a right to warn you off, and if you persisted than that would be veering into criminality because you wouldn't have consent).

If the action is not in itself wrong (ie touching his girlfriend intimately with previous consent given between them through their established sexual boundaries), and he made an honest mistake, than at the point of the event, what he did oughtn't have been deemed criminal.

The level of contrition afterwards might determine whether they believe his version of events but it doesn't change what he actually did, and that should be the determining factor IMO.

jimgoose

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m clearly not talking about the article in the post of mine that you quoted. Gbear made a more general comment about somebody saying that touching your partner in their sleep (note: not “falling asleep”, “in their sleep”) was assault. I’m trying to clarify what Gbear thinks. Because, to me, there’s a difference between getting in beside your partner when they are drifting off but still awake and doing stuff to them when they are completely asleep.

Well, I agree with that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Gbear wrote: »

I wouldn't for a minute suggest that women don't have the right to determine who can touch their body, including a boyfriend or husband, but what you would expect from a long term relationship is that there would be sufficient trust, intimate knowledge and physical shorthand that it wouldn't necessarily be an issue.

For a new relationship, that's a lot dicier. It might be making sure they're ok with you holding their hand on a first date, but that's not what you'd expect later on, and that spectrum would shift further along, depending on your mutual understanding and boundaries set up, the further it gets into a relationship.

I certainly wouldn't say your friend is wrong in your case. I don't know the details and it would be wrong to give a moral pronouncement on it one way or the other, much less determine criminality.

The point is not that there's no way him touching his girlfriend intimately is wrong, but that it's not possible to determine without knowing the ins and outs of their relationship, and further, that it's debatable about whether it should be a criminal matter, depending on how explicit the communcations are with regards to it, frequency of occurence (ie, if you did something sexual once your partner didn't like then they've a right to warn you off, and if you persisted than that would be veering into criminality because you wouldn't have consent).

If the action is not in itself wrong (ie touching his girlfriend intimately with previous consent given between them through their established sexual boundaries), and he made an honest mistake, than at the point of the event, what he did oughtn't have been deemed criminal.

The level of contrition afterwards might determine whether they believe his version of events but it doesn't change what he actually did, and that should be the determining factor IMO.

The details: she woke up to find her boyfriend fingering her. Nothing more complicated.

The second bolded bit: :eek: She was asleep. Fully asleep. He was mid act when she awoke.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Carlo Alberto wrote: »

One particular girlfriend in the past woke me up on a number of occasions performing oral sex on me. I wouldn't regard it as sexual assault because there are levels of implicit consent built within relationships.

You don’t consider it assault. Others do. I’ve never been in a relationship where I’d be okay with what you describe. If my husband did that, we’d be through.

In court, I wouldn’t fancy the chances of anyone who argues it’s not assault despite how depressingly long it took to acknowledge marital rape in this country.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Carlo Alberto wrote: »

I think you missed my point, whether it's assault depends on the relationship. The same action could be assault in one relationship but not in another.

Well, that’s super that you didn’t consider it assault. Many would though.

retro:electro

Carlo Alberto wrote: »

One particular girlfriend in the past woke me up on a number of occasions performing oral sex on me. I wouldn't regard it as sexual assault because there are levels of implicit consent built within relationships.

Isn’t this your third account today now? How sad are you?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Around 10 years ago one my mates was having a house shin dig when his folks were away.

I fell alseep in the boxroom. The next day 2 girls who were friends of mine said they had a look at my manhood when i was alseep because they heard stories that i was well endowed

All good craic . However if i was offended thats sexual assault i assume ?

Aaaah, were you not creeped out by that?

retro:electro

Lasera wrote: »

Has anyone actually explained what the benefits would be of putting him in jail if indeed it was a mistake?

I think some people are just nasty and want to see pain inflicted upon others, that's why they can't actually give any benefits of putting him in jail if it was a mistake. Such people pose as moral and just, but the reality is their angry little egos want to inflict pain on others.

Thanks for re reging for a fourth time to tell us what you’ve already said a million times