Die Hard 2019 wrote: I had my ass slapped at a Christmas party last night, it was one of those multi company ones and I did not know the perpetrator from Adam, all their friends laughed, should they be prosecuted as accomplices or only the person that assaulted me.
Die Hard 2019 wrote: » I had my ass slapped at a Christmas party last night, it was one of those multi company ones and I did not know the perpetrator from Adam, all their friends laughed, should they be prosecuted as accomplices or only the person that assaulted me.
threeball wrote: » None of them in my opinion. If you want to have him cautioned and make complaint to the guards or your boss im on board. Does he deserve a sexual battery charge? Absolutely not.
Ironicname wrote: » Not true at all. You gave multiple examples of why it is acceptable to touch someone's arse without consent.Granted it was only in one specific example. Let me ask you two more question which are non specific and your answer will be telling: Is smacking another grown persons arse without consent sexual battery in your opinion? And if it is not, what should the parameters be that makes it sexual battery?
Tea drinker wrote: » I've had my ass slapped by a gay colleague, don't think he ever intended on slapping me on the face. Well in any traditional sense
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Nonsense. The two terms, in common parlance, are two very different things. I have known of lots of reasonable guys who have given their other half a joking slap on the backside and neither party thought anything of it. I dont know any, nor do I want to, that would be guilty of slapping their girlfriend, as the phrase is known in common use. You deliberately used this phrase to infer that meaning onto the slap on the backside. But it is wholly inaccurate and disingenuous. Here is why. Frends often give each other a friendly punch on the arm or a fist bump etc. Going by your logic, that is to be viewed the same way as any type of punch, because a punch is a punch, and they are therefore guilty of assault. Its just not the case.
Ironicname wrote: » Depends. Did they play football? Because it's acceptable in that realm.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » The bits in bold. Lol. It appears to be sexual battery under the law. And it’s a legal term so obviously the local legal experts thought it had a good chance of conviction. So on that basis it’s probably sexual battery (but I’m not a legal expert so I don’t know for sure either way. That’s why it’s being prosecuted as sexual battery. My opinion doesn’t really matter beyond that.
Die Hard 2019 wrote: » They work in a different company,my boss wouldn't have any influence over them. The Guards are a disgrace the lady on the desk laughed at me.
Reviews and Books Galore wrote: » I thought they were pushing for assault?
threeball wrote: » If you're that offended over it get the cctv. Or else you could do with 90% of people do and brush it off. Why waste energy on it. You'll spend weeks searching and ruminating it in your mind or let it go. Everyone faces things that pissed them off every day from reckless drivers to asshole clients or customers. Do we ring the cops to report a guy overtaking on a corner. No we don't, but he could have killed you or your family. If you take everything on board you'll drive yourself mad.
Die Hard 2019 wrote: » There wouldn't be CCTV would there?
threeball wrote: » If it was a public area there almost certainly is. They have to protect themselves from insurance claims.
Augme wrote: » They'll never get the CCTV even if there is a camera there.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: The bits in bold. Lol.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: It appears to be sexual battery under the law. And it’s a legal term so obviously the local legal experts thought it had a good chance of conviction. So on that basis it’s probably sexual battery (but I’m not a legal expert so I don’t know for sure either way. That’s why it’s being prosecuted as sexual battery. My opinion doesn’t really matter beyond that.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ok. The guy was charged with sexual battery. That implies 2 things: one is that he hit the person, the other is that it wa sexual in nature. I get that you don’t like the facts. But them’s the facts nonetheless.
Die Hard 2019 wrote: » That's great I'll ring them tomorrow and see how I get a copy. There were assigned seats so it will be easy to see which company it was.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » So you keep saying. It doesnt change the fact that it is a nonsense charge.
Potential-Monke wrote: » Aye, pretty sure only the Gardai can request it, and they'll only request it on the back of a written statement of complaint. So you'd need to report it to the Gardai first. Nothing stopping you from enquiring with the hotel how long the footage is kept, so you can tell the Garda to get a move on. Alternatively, if there were assigned seats, you will still be able to follow up with a complaint without footage, but then it's a she-said-he-said case. I also think that due to your previous comment regarding the Gardai that you don't have much trust in them anyway, so if you don't want to go through them, only your own HR can do an internal review and get the Gardai involved if required. But any footage would be well gone by that stage.
Die Hard 2019 wrote: Jausus!!
Augme wrote: Haha, this reads like some 19 year who did an elective in physcology 101.
Ironicname wrote: » For the record, I disagree and do not condone what was said there. But it does bang of deflection....
meeeeh wrote: » So just be a good girl and let men slap your arse like they used to. It's an act of humiliation done by cowards usually when they are drunk. We are all supposed to smile and take it and then when one doesn't follow the script and complains then there is an outrage how the man's life will be ruined. It won't but it's good to know what your priorities are.
meeeeh wrote: So just be a good girl and let men slap your arse like they used to. It's an act of humiliation done by cowards usually when they are drunk. We are all supposed to smile and take it and then when one doesn't follow the script and complains then there is an outrage how the man's life will be ruined. It won't but it's good to know what your priorities are.
Ironicname wrote: » Absolute total lolorofic bants my dude!!!!! I misspoke. I should have said you gave MULTIPLE EXAMPLES of why you have no problem with sexual contact NOT NEEDING CONSENT but I only gave you ONE SCENARIO. I admittedly used the word example twice instead of saying scenario. I like how you ignored that you excused what legally could be construed as sexual battery. As seen by your next point. And we agree at least on one point. You don't think your opinion matters. Neither do I. How compliant are you that you refuse to give an opinion? I'm not an expert on football, but I know what I think constitutes a good football player. Hang about... You aren't an expert on football either... Yet you could give me more than three reasons why they should be allowed touch each other without consent. So are you saying you can't give your OPINION on whether a law is correct, but you can give me MULTIPLE reasons why the law of touching someone without consent shouldn't be applicable to that law? But yeah... Lol on me for saying example instead of scenario.
Ironicname wrote: » No. But perhaps don't treat a random slap on the arse like a serious sexual assault and be safe in the knowledge that vast majority of the population of the western world think the man's behaviour was unacceptable and he should be admonished but perhaps not be branded as a sexual predator as you would a rapist?
Die Hard 2019 wrote: » It was a woman and she was cheered by her four mates.
