Bad Paddy wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Whatever you think there, sweetheart. I'm not in disbelief, I unfortunately grew up in Ireland. My Canadian friends actually grew up somewhere where a woman recounting a rape or an assault wasn't immediately disbelieved and mocked. Eh, pretty sure, even in Trudeau's femanazi paradise, a man get's a fair trial before being convicted.
irishrebe wrote: » Whatever you think there, sweetheart. I'm not in disbelief, I unfortunately grew up in Ireland. My Canadian friends actually grew up somewhere where a woman recounting a rape or an assault wasn't immediately disbelieved and mocked.
the_pen_turner wrote: » it says there that you cannot consent with drink taken.
thebaz wrote: » why did only a couple of hundred march in Belfast, the jusidstriction where court place took place , and in Dublin 4,000 took to the streets to protest at the alleged misscarriage of justice ? I'm puzzled - if the case had taken place in Republic , I could understand somewhat. Also why all the protesting about this case , why not protest at some of the leniant sentencing for violent rape crimes that were actially convicted here in the Republic of Ireland ?? That I could totally understand.
the_pen_turner wrote: » it says there that you cannot consent with drink taken. in this case the woman had 6 unts and the defendants had 22 ( i think someone posted that a few thousand posts ago) surely that means that they didnt consent either . if it applies one way then it applies the other too.
FrancieBrady wrote: » If I didn't stop when asked to it is a crime. The ridiculous notion that the simple act of initiating something between two adults who have already consented to be in a bed together is decided to be a crime (regardless of how they react to it) is what is ridiculous. Evidenced by the fact that you cannot present a single case history of a court case over the situation the original poster found himself in.
The Talking Bread wrote: » no it saysif he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug, That is the grey area of alcohol and consent which is the subject of huge debate. The barometer of when or when not you are at a level of drunkenness when your ability to consent is removed.
The Talking Bread wrote: » FrancieBrady wrote: » If I didn't stop when asked to it is a crime. The ridiculous notion that the simple act of initiating something between two adults who have already consented to be in a bed together is decided to be a crime (regardless of how they react to it) is what is ridiculous. Evidenced by the fact that you cannot present a single case history of a court case over the situation the original poster found himself in. You really are dangerously ignorant. It is one thing initiating a sexual act on someone, in bed or not and assuming consent but in your world just because you went into bed with her, it essentially gives you full consent until she gets out!! Awake, asleep, intoxicated or not! To be honest with you I am starting to doubt you have any sexual experience going by your colourful approach to it. You sound like a frustrated teenager!
the_pen_turner wrote: » i understand that. so 6 units makes her drunk and unable to consent but 22 doesnt make the defendants too drunk to consent. that seems strange
freshpopcorn wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Whatever you think there, sweetheart. I'm not in disbelief, I unfortunately grew up in Ireland. My Canadian friends actually grew up somewhere where a woman recounting a rape or an assault wasn't immediately disbelieved and mocked. Would your Canadian friends start a hashtag movement about an ongoing court case without hearing all the fact? and refuse to take on board the decision the jury made based on the evidence?
Faugheen wrote: » It says specifically if they are incapable because of the effect of alcohol. In other words, if you have a woman (or man) that can barely stand never mind anything else because if a lot of drink taken, then they cannot consent. It does not mean one drink = no consent. In this case, both defendants and complainant didn't feel they were that drunk that they couldn't consent, as they have admitted.
Faugheen wrote: » She never said she was too drunk to consent. It was actually the barristers of the defendants who played up the amount of drink she had taken and what affect it had in her. Nobody else.
TerrorFirmer wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I am calm. No need to patronise me. I just think it's incredible that people on this thread think that the hashtag crew are doing more to damage Ireland's reputation than some of the posters on this thread. In the last few pages alone, there is someone insinuating that you should expect to be raped if you go to fetch your bag from a room you were kissing a guy in, several people mocking the idea that having sex with a sleeping person is illegal and men who support consent classes are being called pathetic creeps. You don't think all of this is a million times darker than some sap with a MEN R TRASH sign? Some of the men posting here have done a far better job of making men seem like monsters than any 'snowflake green haired feminist' could have. Yet nobody on here seems to see what is so astoundingly obvious to the rest of the world. Honestly you're giving way, way, WAY too much weight to an anonymous internet board.
irishrebe wrote: » I am calm. No need to patronise me. I just think it's incredible that people on this thread think that the hashtag crew are doing more to damage Ireland's reputation than some of the posters on this thread. In the last few pages alone, there is someone insinuating that you should expect to be raped if you go to fetch your bag from a room you were kissing a guy in, several people mocking the idea that having sex with a sleeping person is illegal and men who support consent classes are being called pathetic creeps. You don't think all of this is a million times darker than some sap with a MEN R TRASH sign? Some of the men posting here have done a far better job of making men seem like monsters than any 'snowflake green haired feminist' could have. Yet nobody on here seems to see what is so astoundingly obvious to the rest of the world.
the_pen_turner wrote: » im talking in more general terms and using this as an example. 1 unit could make someone drunk and 20 could have no effect of somone else its a huge grey area that needs serious though before anything oficial
irishrebe wrote: » No, but they told me that if someone did, it certainly wouldn't provoke the level of bile seen on this thread. Having read some of the viewpoints exposed on here, they also understand a lot better why some of those Irish women using the hashtag might feel they way they do.
citytillidie wrote: » I say because a big name Irish Rugby player was the accused maybe the reason
Uncharted wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » No, but they told me that if someone did, it certainly wouldn't provoke the level of bile seen on this thread. Having read some of the viewpoints exposed on here, they also understand a lot better why some of those Irish women using the hashtag might feel they way they do. If Ireland is so bad,just leave. If you are alone with someone and feel threatened,just leave. If this thread offends you,just leave. It's called free will. Stop looking to be offended about everything and everyone.
irishrebe wrote: » I did leave. And reading this thread, I have never felt more thankful. Does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the country most of my family and friends still live in?
RuMan wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I did leave. And reading this thread, I have never felt more thankful. Does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the country most of my family and friends still live in? Best of luck, maybe u should move on with ur life. Trudeau talks a lot about "equality" for a mans whose success is primarily down to who his daddy was. Hopefully one day the gay son of immigrants might lead canada.
irishrebe wrote: » Maybe. And hopefully that person will give a sh1te about interests other than his own.
Uncharted wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Maybe. And hopefully that person will give a sh1te about interests other than his own. Do you honestly think an online anonymous chat forum will change anyone's strongly held opinion? You're sitting in a foreign country,constantly online dictating to others,back here in this 'cesspit' about what to think. Haa. It's almost tragic. You poor thing.
irishrebe wrote: » 'Dictating to others what to think'. Wow, it's almost like this is....what's it called again...one of those 'discussion board' yokes, I think the young wans call them these days.
dudara wrote: » ADMIN NOTE - Please stop engaging with the trolls. Report their posts, the mods and admins will deal with them. dudara
Uncharted wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » 'Dictating to others what to think'. Wow, it's almost like this is....what's it called again...one of those 'discussion board' yokes, I think the young wans call them these days. Touched a nerve....?
