Runner that slapped reporters ass, is facing criminal charges

dubstarr · 16-12-2019 10:45AM

As regards to it being "her fault" that he is being done for sexual battery, in some part yes. As the poster said, the woman is responsible for her reaction to what happened, but it is the legislators that are responsible for the ridiculous hyperbolic phrasing of the offence.

But its not her fault.The fault lies squarely at the door of the man that slapped her arse.Theres no ifs or buts there.If he hadnt of slapped her,he wouldnt be getting done for sexual battery.

And that woman is allowed to feel any way she wants.She was the one assaulted.

Rows Grower · 16-12-2019 10:51AM

There's too much faux outrage about this altogether, it was obviously only meant as a bit of banter.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 10:56AM

Ironicname wrote: »

Hang on. Are you saying that if something is "probably fine" it's ok to assume consent in that context?

I'm saying neither is correct, but common sense should prevail e.g if it's a random event which didn't escalate, we should probably not refer to it as sexual battery.

No absolutely not. But do you think a person is giving implied consent because they play football?

Good question re the footballers. I don’t know For certain, to be honest.

I think context is an important factor. So football has a shared understanding of arse slapping and forehead kissing (this is a salient point so keep it in mind). So in those contexts it’s similar to a pat on the upper back to express congratulations. If someone nod averse to arse slapping or forehead kissing in that context, then it might be up to them to express themselves.

If you’re playing football and slap your teammate’s arse and they ask you not to do it again because they don’t like it. Then. You know how they feel. They have expressed that don’t consent.

In the football context it’s probably not a good idea to slap a teammate who you don’t know. But it’s a tricky one.

How do you define the difference between slapping a total stranger on the arse and slapping a football teammate on the arse?

And secondly: since we both agree the guy didn’t have consent to slap yer wan’s arse, how’s the football context relevant again?

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 10:58AM

Rows Grower wrote: »

There's too much faux outrage about this altogether, it was obviously only meant as a bit of banter.

Yeah it probably was only meant as a bit of banter. If yer man knew it was a criminal offence he probably wouldn’t have done it.

But it is a criminal offence and he did do it. So.... the rest is just the legal system taking its Normal course.

16-12-2019 11:04AM

Sarahdunners wrote: »

I agree dubstarr, as women, we have had to take loads of crap from certain men and now times are changing.

Those sexist days are gone. And I am so, so happy.

The point of this lads is - if you touch a bum - you can be charged with a sexual crime. So keep your hands to yourself.

If anyone touches me - I will charge them.

As we said, women are not taking that **** anymore.

"We as women" "certain men"

So women are a collective but you have softened your cough to now acknowledge that it is now "certain men"?

Do you now class people as "women" and "men" are now people who don't think like you?

I have to agree with previous posters. People who generalise like you do shouldn't be taken seriously.

threeball · 16-12-2019 11:05AM

Rows Grower wrote: »

There's too much faux outrage about this altogether, it was obviously only meant as a bit of banter.

Unfortunately that's today's world where there's a cohort of people who seek offence in everything, who wish to exaggerate every interaction to have much more meaning or intent that it had in reality. They spend their lives on moral high ground and surround themselves with like minded cheerleaders to reaffirm their beliefs.

dubstarr · 16-12-2019 11:13AM

Rows Grower wrote: »

There's too much faux outrage about this altogether, it was obviously only meant as a bit of banter.

Sexual assault on women is not "banter"
FFS

Therein lies the problem.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 11:17AM

dubstarr wrote: »

Sexual assault on women is not "banter"
FFS

Therein lies the problem.

Do you think yer man knew it was legally classes as sexual assault before he did it?

Honestly, I don't think I knew it was classed as sexual assault in Ireland and I didn't know people have been prosecuted for it in Ireland.

Rows Grower · 16-12-2019 11:26AM

dubstarr wrote: »

Sexual assault on women is not "banter"
FFS

Therein lies the problem.

Would ya go away out of that with your sexual assault.

Isn't there anything else you could pretend be outraged about instead of this?

Rows Grower · 16-12-2019 11:27AM

Rows Grower wrote: »

It could have been worse, look at what happened this lady reporter going about her duties

https://www.facebook.com/crazyinsanitypage/videos/1281933351968366/?t=3

What about this?

Sharp MZ700 · 16-12-2019 11:28AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you think yer man knew it was legally classes as sexual assault before he did it?

Honestly, I don't think I knew it was classed as sexual assault in Ireland and I didn't know people have been prosecuted for it in Ireland.

Don't go to an AH beers you'll be fine by the looks of it.

"Certain" women might not like it. (I'm sure NO women do, but these generalisations are OK now, yeah? )

rustynutz · 16-12-2019 11:34AM

dubstarr wrote: »

Sexual assault on women is not "banter"
FFS

Therein lies the problem.

Do you think referring to this incident as sexual assault devalues the experience of people who have actually been sexually assaulted and will carry the scars for many years after?

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 11:38AM

Rows Grower wrote: »

Would ya go away out of that with your sexual assault.

Isn't there anything else you could pretend be outraged about instead of this?

We'll, he's been charged with sexual assault. So its actually not pretend outrage, it's just commenting accurately on how the case is being treated by the law.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 11:41AM

rustynutz wrote: »

Do you think referring to this incident as sexual assault devalues the experience of people who have actually been sexually assaulted and will carry the scars for many years after?

Nope. Not as long as there are varying degrees of sexual assault. If this case is theses as lower end of the scale, then if say it's appropriate. There's no need to only consider the lost serious crimes and ignore the lower end crimes for fear of upsetting victims of higher end crimes.

The law should probably just prosecute crimes as appropriate

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 16-12-2019 11:49AM

Sarahdunners wrote: »

If anyone touches me - I will charge them.

Good to know you have the Guards on speed-dial. Maybe you can swaddle yourself in hazard tape so we evil men know to give you an especially wide berth.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 11:52AM

Treasure Sticky Weirdness wrote: »

Good to know you have the Guards on speed-dial. Maybe you can swaddle yourself in hazard tape so we evil men know to give you an especially wide berth.

Yes. Or probably just not touching up strangers is another way around it. Would you agree?

16-12-2019 11:59AM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope. Not as long as there are varying degrees of sexual assault. If this case is theses as lower end of the scale, then if say it's appropriate. There's no need to only consider the lost serious crimes and ignore the lower end crimes for fear of upsetting victims of higher end crimes.

The law should probably just prosecute crimes as appropriate

Do you think that someone who smacked someone on the bum once without consent should be disqualified from working with children, the elderly or the disabled?

You did say previously that someone charged with any sexual assault would be if I remember correctly.

Is that fair or appropriate?

Sarahdunners · 16-12-2019 12:03PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"We as women" "certain men"

So women are a collective but you have softened your cough to now acknowledge that it is now "certain men"?

Do you now class people as "women" and "men" are now people who don't think like you?

I have to agree with previous posters. People who generalise like you do shouldn't be taken seriously.

What a load of bollocks. I was talking to a female poster.

When I referred to me and her, who are both women, I said "as women". We are both women.

I know that you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the argument - when you post garbage like that.

ohnonotgmail · 16-12-2019 12:05PM

Treasure Sticky Weirdness wrote: »

Good to know you have the Guards on speed-dial. Maybe you can swaddle yourself in hazard tape so we evil men know to give you an especially wide berth.

Good to know that there are still posters here that will defend somebody who touches women without their consent. You would really have to wonder why you would do that.

Sarahdunners · 16-12-2019 12:05PM

Rows Grower wrote: »

Would ya go away out of that with your sexual assault.

Isn't there anything else you could pretend be outraged about instead of this?

Rows grower

Do you know that people have been convicted for sexual assault, for touching a woman on the bum - in Ireland.

If you don't know this - get to know it real quick

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 12:05PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you think that someone who smacked someone on the bum once without consent should be disqualified from working with children, the elderly or the disabled?

You did say previously that someone charged with any sexual assault would be if I remember correctly.

Is that fair?

I said anyone convicted of sexual crimes would most likely be automatically disqualified from working with children and the vulnerable. I think that's a good rule. We tend eer on the side of caution when it comes to protecting children.

I've said a few times I think slapping arses is at the lower end of the scale of sexual assault so it's harsh. But it's a good rule to protect children and the vulnerable. Do you agree?

alan partridge aha · 16-12-2019 12:05PM

Remember seeing during a demo dance sequence on Strictly it takes two, Shirley Ballas squeezed a dance pro ass cheek. Is this sexual assault?

Sarahdunners · 16-12-2019 12:07PM

rustynutz wrote: »

Do you think referring to this incident as sexual assault devalues the experience of people who have actually been sexually assaulted and will carry the scars for many years after?

No I don't think so.

Instead I think that people who have been sexually assaulted will be very proud of her for standing up for herself

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 12:09PM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Remember seeing during a demo dance sequence on Strictly it takes two, Shirley Ballas squeezed a dance pro ass cheek. Is this sexual assault?

As part of a dance or just in general conversation? If the latter then it could be considered sexual assault. I haven't heard the pro reporting the incident to the police.

16-12-2019 12:20PM

Context is key. If you've never met, interacted or spoken to someone then don't touch their bum out of the blue.

It's out of order and caveman-like behaviour (or cave-woman).

16-12-2019 12:21PM

Sarahdunners wrote: »

What a load of bollocks. I was talking to a female poster.

When I referred to me and her, who are both women, I said "as women". We are both women.

I know that you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the argument - when you post garbage like that.

Lets break this down for you:

You referred to "as women" while speaking to another woman, but lets look at the last line:

Sarahdunners wrote: »

As we said, women are not taking that **** anymore

So while you were referring to a woman when you said "as women", did you specifically mean just you two, or were you doing what you have repeatedly done, and consider yourself the ambassador for the assaulted women of Ireland?

Telling lads to keep their hands to themselves, while a decent enough mantra and something I agree with in order to protect decent men from women like you and to also protect women from bad men, is somehow all directed towards predatory men against vulnerable women in your mind.

People shouldn't touch people without their consent as a general rule, but an isolated incident of smacking another person's bum should not automatically be considered a sexual offence as it may not be one or an offence that puts someone in the same bracket as a sexual predator or sexual offender.

Sarahdunners wrote: »

If anyone touches me - I will charge them.

If anyone touches you? What about on a crowded luas? What about something that is genuinely accidental but you don't feel that it is? Does the onus lie on the man to have to convince the police that your hand came in contact with your backside or should we assume because you feel violated that he has committed a sex crime?

16-12-2019 12:25PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said anyone convicted of sexual crimes would most likely be automatically disqualified from working with children and the vulnerable. I think that's a good rule. We tend eer on the side of caution when it comes to protecting children.

I've said a few times I think slapping arses is at the lower end of the scale of sexual assault so it's harsh. But it's a good rule to protect children and the vulnerable. Do you agree?

No.

Because as you said, context is key. A single incident of smacking another person on the bum which didn't seem sexual at all, is not erring on the side of caution. If it was a repeated behaviour and was overtly sexual, then perhaps. But no. I think this is a huge over-reaction.

Should Justin Trudeau be banned from holding office because of his black face past in case he may be a racist? Just to err on the side of caution?

blade1 · 16-12-2019 12:28PM

Any rational thinking person should be able to see there was no sexual intention in what the guy did.

jimgoose · 16-12-2019 12:29PM

This idiot Callaway should know full well that grabbing a complete stranger by the arse on live television in this day and age is not going to end well for him. That woman had a face on her like a stunned mullet just after it happened, you could tell she could hardly believe anyone would actually do that.

El_Duderino 09 · 16-12-2019 12:34PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No.

Because as you said, context is key. A single incident of smacking another person on the bum which didn't seem sexual at all, is not erring on the side of caution. If it was a repeated behaviour and was overtly sexual, then perhaps. But no. I think this is a huge over-reaction.

Should Justin Trudeau be banned from holding office because of his black face past in case he may be a racist? Just to err on the side of caution?

It will be up to the law to decide if it was sexual assault. If it was, and if those convicted of sexual assault are disqualified from working with children and the vulnerable, then...

Re Trudeau: is black face illegal? And if convicted of whatever crime black face transgresses, does it usually carry an automatic disqualification from holding public office? Since the answer to both those questions is ‘no’ then the answer is no.

Context is key. The guy slapped a stranger’s arse and now he’s being prosecuted for sexual assault. So that fact suggests the context of slapping a stranger’s arse is sexual assault. But he hasn’t been tried yet so that’s not certain.

Runner that slapped reporters ass, is facing criminal charges

Comments