Healthcare assistant jailed for 11 years for rape of woman with Alzheimer's

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not a big fan of the #ibelieveher movement so?

Isn’t it #believewomen, not #believeallwomen; certainly not #beliveherbrother or #believeanonymousaccounts.

When it’s a Supreme Court Justice, a lifetime appointment, and the accuser comes forward in public and isn’t just a Jane Doe that’s a lot different than use of an alleged sister as a prop to sidestep argument from a basis on objective and independently verifiable facts.

If I tell you my fiancé was raped as an adolescent it’s up to you if you want to believe me but it has no tangible bearing on the discussion here at all.

2u2me

suicide_circus wrote: »

well either way, punishing the kids for their father's sins seems pretty medieval to me. Deport him by all means however.

We attribute blame to groups of people now, why not punish them as groups also? (White guilt).

Doesn't seem an easy answer, but if that was my father I'd be happy to be rid of him.

MFPM wrote: »

I disagree. Crimes committed by non-Irish nationals are continually used by by groups and individuals to propagate against migrants/asylum seekers etc.

This man committed an appalling act and he will now rightly pay a heavy price, his nationality and citizenship status are broadly irrelevant.

You chastize others for focusing on his nationality, while focusing on his gender. Why is that? You could have said "this person commited an appalling act, their nationality and citizenship are broadly irrelevant."

To be fair it's not just you; it's been done countless times in this thread. Am I the only one seeing hypocrisy or am I wrong here.

Overheal wrote: »

Anyone can be a rapist

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

We attribute blame to groups of people now, why not punish them as groups also? (White guilt).

Doesn't seem an easy answer, but if that was my father I'd be happy to be rid of him.



You chastize others for focusing on his nationality, while focusing on his gender. Why is that? You could have said "this person commited an appalling act, their nationality and citizenship are broadly irrelevant."

To be fair it's not just you; it's been done countless times in this thread. Am I the only one seeing hypocrisy or am I wrong here.

Misandry isn’t exactly an issue is it, no common person is going to read the news piece and go off and discriminate against all men are they. “Florida MAN why not Florida PERSON geez” :rolleyes: “ah! A man! All men are rapists and meth addicts! Why don’t you go back to Mars!” Eh, no, Having an insincere tangent about his gender being invoked is not a great deflection from the broader issue here. Whereas racial bias is a tangible issue, a handful of brown skinned people do crimes and you have quite a few people out there (and in these fora) who then adopt a phobia of the broader spectrum of brown skinned people with limited discern for nationality or circumstance.

Indeed the press is not obligated to disclose either nationality or gender, but I can more readily understand the editorial decision to leave skin color or nationality or religion out of the topic. These traits only ever seem important to people when it’s the negative news doesn’t it. The outlets might feel an air of responsibility for feeding xenophobia, and with it indirectly, trends to hate crimes.

I mean I’m not a journalist, right. But I feel like if I were I’d have consternation about one week writing a bunch of stories like “muslim Nigerian man rapes family” and then the next week having to write “hate crimes against Muslims and African nationals on the rise” (I mean unless I was a white supremacist journalist or something who knew the response I was trying to illicit)

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Misandry isn’t exactly an issue is it, no common person is going to read the news piece and go off and discriminate against all men are they. “Florida MAN why not Florida PERSON geez” :rolleyes: “ah! A man! All men are rapists and meth addicts! Why don’t you go back to Mars!” Eh, no, Having an insincere tangent about his gender being invoked is not a great deflection from the broader issue here. Whereas racial bias is a tangible issue, a handful of brown skinned people do crimes and you have quite a few people out there (and in these fora) who then adopt a phobia of the broader spectrum of brown skinned people with limited discern for nationality or circumstance.

Indeed the press is not obligated to disclose either nationality or gender, but I can more readily understand the editorial decision to leave skin color or nationality or religion out of the topic. These traits only ever seem important to people when it’s the negative news doesn’t it. The outlets might feel an air of responsibility for feeding xenophobia, and with it indirectly, trends to hate crimes.

I mean I’m not a journalist, right. But I feel like if I were I’d have consternation about one week writing a bunch of stories like “muslim Nigerian man rapes family” and then the next week having to write “hate crimes against Muslims and African nationals on the rise” (I mean unless I was a white supremacist journalist or something who knew the response I was trying to illicit)

When we had a thread about a 'homophobic attack' on a London bus the thread OP was

klaaaz wrote: »

2 women were bloodily beaten up by a group of men in a violent homophobic attack. Why do some men get upset, angry and offended at gay people existing, they could have just minded their own business on what other's people's sexuality is but they rather intervene in strangers lives and beat them up for being gay.

Actually it turned out the gay women attacked the boys first.

Imagine that read "Why do Africans get upset, angry and offended at old people existing in nursing homes"
In that thread you were free to berate men, but not Muslims- which is just a reflection of the real world.

Here's another post.

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What? This has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The men wanted the women to put on a show for them. When they refused they beat them. So not just a homophobic attack, a misogynistic one too from men who think that women exist for their titillation, and who don't like to be told no

Imagine this read "This has nothing to do with the gender. The African wanted the woman for his sexual pleasure. An attack from an African who thinks women exist for his titillation." That got 141 thanks by the way.

It's a double standard. Racial bias is a tangible issue and misandry is not. Double standard.

"you have quite a few people out there (and in these fora) who then adopt a phobia of the broader spectrum of brown skinned people with limited discern for nationality or circumstance. "

You also have people out there in these very fora who adopt a phobia of the broader spectrum of police with limited discern for circumstance. Should we also ban statistics about crime?

Overheal

"2u2me wrote: »

It's a double standard. Racial bias is a tangible issue and misandry is not. Double standard.

I disagree, because we see a spate of hate crimes based on race but not a spate of hate crimes against men etc. you know? If sexism of that nature became a growing problem I’d warm to the idea of it being double standards at that point.

Should we also ban statistics about crime?

Actually no and I’m glad you brought it up. I think statistics aren’t really the problem, I think the problem is how the media reports on it, how it’s taken up by people and how it potentially leads to hate crimes in these circumstances. I think the stats should be used properly and critically, ie. “Blacks commit more crimes” doesn’t paint an entire picture, where a broader and deeper study into police interaction statistics, deployment patterns, per capita and demographic considerations, and the nature of the crimes would be more constructive and should be discussed in proper settings, in the tabloids etc. it’s all for sensationalism and sales for example. It’s a lot like people consuming junk science, people will as readily believe they need to eat gluten free waffles or masks will kill them with carbon dioxide as they do believe they need to give dark skinned people a wide berth for their safety, as though those of a lighter complexion aren’t also a risk for inflicting criminal harm:

In my retail experience we even had shoplifters collude together in groups, trick our asset protection team into being distracted by implicit bias while the unseeming member of their group does the actual pilfering - eg. In a string of cases a white young woman, her white boyfriend and their black friend worked together to steal $100s in electronics, boyfriend distracts the associates like me while the friend distracted security and she was off elsewhere cutting into packages. Played us for fools really. But, there I go with unprovable anecdotes of limited value, so feel free to disregard.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

I disagree, because we see a spate of hate crimes based on race but not a spate of hate crimes against men etc. you know? If sexism of that nature became a growing problem I’d warm to the idea of it being double standards at that point.

A hate crime against men is impossible by its very definition. You're far more likely to be attacked or murdered if you are a man.

MintyMagnum

Go on Regina Doherty. Pity it wasn't the law.

Eric Cartman

2u2me wrote: »

A hate crime against men is impossible by its very definition. You're far more likely to be attacked or murdered if you are a man.

How does that exclude them from it being a hate crime though

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t think it was me who told you that at least

Found this FWIW

I clicked on 'info' on a few of those crimes.

A woman was subjected to misogynous and sexist insults, photographed and threatened by police officers. The perpetrators also threatened her sexual partner and extorted money from him.

A woman was repeatedly subjected to anti-Muslim and sexist insults and threatened with murder and physical assault by a group via the internet.

A woman was subjected to misogynous and sexist insults and death threats, physically assaulted and robbed during sexual intercourse.

Two lesbian women were subjected to homophobic and misogynous insults and physically assaulted by a group during a festival. The victims sustained injuries.

I mean all the data and statistics shows that men are far more likely to be attacked, shot at, murdered etc. etc.. yet all the reports of hate crimes are of women.

They weren't attacked because they were men you might argue, but I'm sure many were called "d1ckhead" "Wanker" etc.. when they were being attacked. Were such language used in another attack against a 'protected minority' it would be evidence of homophobia or misogyny or whatever.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

I clicked on 'info' on a few of those crimes.









I mean all the data and statistics shows that men are far more likely to be attacked, shot at, murdered etc. etc.. yet all the reports of hate crimes are of women.

They weren't attacked because they were men you might argue, but I'm sure many were called "d1ckhead" "Wanker" etc.. when they were being attacked. Were such language used in another attack against a 'protected minority' it would be evidence of homophobia or misogyny or whatever.

I mean I’m all ears to find evidence of a rash of hate crimes committed purely or primarily because the perps were men. I just don’t think it’s a significant problem and to be fair a distraction from the kernel of the discussion here. Not to shut the line of thought down but to focus back on the heinous nature of raping an Alzheimer’s patient.

2u2me

2u2me wrote: »

A hate crime against men is impossible by its very definition. You're far more likely to be attacked or murdered if you are a man.

If its possible against a woman then its possible against a man. Doesn't matter who it's more likely against.

Boulevardier

I couldn't help noticing that the man convicted in this case was named on RTE Morning Ireland, but later that day, Virgin Media withheld his name, as did the Irish Times the following day. Does anyone know why this was?

MFPM

2u2me wrote: »

We attribute blame to groups of people now, why not punish them as groups also? (White guilt).

Doesn't seem an easy answer, but if that was my father I'd be happy to be rid of him.



You chastize others for focusing on his nationality, while focusing on his gender. Why is that? You could have said "this person commited an appalling act, their nationality and citizenship are broadly irrelevant."

To be fair it's not just you; it's been done countless times in this thread. Am I the only one seeing hypocrisy or am I wrong here.

Yes, you're wrong, there's no hypocrisy...I didn't focus on his gender I commented on the individual in question who is a man - there's no agenda, those focusing on his nationality are doing so for a very particular reason and to be honest I suspect you know that.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

I mean I’m all ears to find evidence of a rash of hate crimes committed purely or primarily because the perps were men. I just don’t think it’s a significant problem and to be fair a distraction from the kernel of the discussion here. Not to shut the line of thought down but to focus back on the heinous nature of raping an Alzheimer’s patient.

What should be done with this individual after a period of incarceration?

padd b1975

Overheal wrote: »

She’s “rightly” having “her hole kicked” for saying the convicted rapist “took advantage” of the victim?

Am I missing something here?

Yes you are.

Do you think she would have used the phrase "took advantage" if it was an old black woman with a degenerative mental illness that was raped by a white man that was supposed to be caring for her?

padd b1975

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes you are.

Do you think she would have used the phrase "took advantage" if it was an old black woman with a degenerative mental illness that was raped by a white man that was supposed to be caring for her?

It's a phrase plenty of people would use to describe what happened. Your obsession with Dr Joseph is pretty strange tbh.

MFPM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes you are.

Do you think she would have used the phrase "took advantage" if it was an old black woman with a degenerative mental illness that was raped by a white man that was supposed to be caring for her?

Yes, I've no doubt she would have unless of course there was a racist motive.

MFPM

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What should be done with this individual after a period of incarceration?

The same thing that happens with all sex offenders after they've served their sentence, he'll be placed on the sex offenders register and is likely to have to check in with the guards at intervals determined by the courts.

Gatling

MFPM wrote: »

he'll be placed on the sex offenders register

No .

There is no register here

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

What should be done with this individual after a period of incarceration?

The same as any citizen who completes the criminal justice systems schedule of corrections.

Overheal

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes you are.

Do you think she would have used the phrase "took advantage" if it was an old black woman with a degenerative mental illness that was raped by a white man that was supposed to be caring for her?

I’m not seeing the problem with the vernacular? Are you just upset she wasn’t more graphic, in a tweet?

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

The same as any citizen who completes the criminal justice systems schedule of corrections.

I agree. There is nothing else that can be done. Once time is served he is a free man

MFPM

Gatling wrote: »

No .

There is no register here

Formally no, but in practice, there is a list.

Gatling

MFPM wrote: »

Formally no, but in practice, there is a list.

No there is not .

And the gardai have repeatedly stated that they do not have the resources to monitor sex offenders 24/7

Signore Fancy Pants

Gatling wrote: »

No there is not .

And the gardai have repeatedly stated that they do not have the resources to monitor sex offenders 24/7

Yep, they can't monitor individual personnel associated with subversive elements including dissident Republicans, criminal gangs and terror suspects.

Id say sex offenders are near the bottom of the list for surveillance.

Gatling

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Yep, they can't monitor individual personnel associated with subversive elements including dissident Republicans, criminal gangs and terror suspects.

Id say sex offenders are near the bottom of the list for surveillance.

I'm sure people not having a TV licence would be quick enough to be picked up first

MFPM

Gatling wrote: »

No there is not .

And the gardai have repeatedly stated that they do not have the resources to monitor sex offenders 24/7

That's as maybe but sex offenders are listed on Pulse and are supposed to be monitored, if the guards don't then it's a resource issue.

It's not the issue at hand anyway.

Gatling

MFPM wrote: »

It's not the issue at hand anyway.

Pulse isn't a sex offenders register .

This scumbags immediate deportation should be the issue

MFPM

Gatling wrote: »

Pulse isn't a sex offenders register .

This scumbags immediate deportation should be the issue

At last, I was wondering how long it would take you....:)

Pulse isn't a sex offenders register .

Never suggested it was...do try to keep up.

Gatling

MFPM wrote: »

At last, I was wondering how long it would take you

Give him a hug instead yeah !