Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Runner that slapped reporters ass, is facing criminal charges

1…1516182021…25

Comments

  • #512
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    Penn wrote: »
    Man kicking woman in crotch and woman kicking man in crotch = No difference

    Man slapping woman's arse and woman slapping man's arse = No difference

    Man slapping woman's arse and woman kicking man in crotch = Difference. It's a different action generally for a different reason with a different intent. It's a complete false equivalency.


    Legally, it's touching someobodies genitalia without consent. Again, your putting sexual overtones on an act vs another act.



    This is silly so I won't be replying to any more comments on this.


  • #513
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    I think there are plenty of places where laws conflict in the strictest sense. But changing a nappy is normal duty of someone in charge of a baby, so changing a nappy in the normal way is just classed as normal care for a child even though it might well involve touching the child's genitals as part of normal cleaning.

    I'm.not a legal expert so maybe someone will clear it up.

    On any case I don't think the guy was fulfilling any kind of duty when he slapped her arse. He was just slapping her arse.

    Jesus, that is close to admitting that you have an opinion outside of the law!!!!

    So (and without trying to sound like that woman from Channel 4), "what your saying is"... there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual?

    If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm?

    Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?


  • #514
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,110 ✭✭✭✭threeball


    jimgoose wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that a hoof to the veg is ever a "playful", sexual gesture? And that a smack on the arse isn't?? :pac:

    No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.


  • #515
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Jesus, that is close to admitting that you have an opinion outside of the law!!!!

    So (and without trying to sound like that woman from Channel 4), "what your saying is"... there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual?

    If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm?

    Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?

    The law as it stands in the place where this took place makes no mention of intention. whether you claim your intent was sexual or not is irrelevant. you keep going back to this and it is irrelevant. All that is relevant isL Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent. and please dont go back to that nonsense about children. it isn't relevant.


  • #516
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    threeball wrote: »
    No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.

    which is entirely irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    which is entirely irrelevant.


    So a kick to the balls is sexual assault?



    To take it further, a woman touching a man on the arm, hands, or chest is sexual assault as women see biceps and chest in a sexualised manner in the same way men see an arse in a sexual manner?


  • #518
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    threeball wrote: »
    No he's saying why is she attributing sexual intent to the smack in the arse. Theres nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning.

    An attractive young woman gets a slap on the arse from a passing man and you make out there's "nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning"?? On what sodding planet? :pac:


  • #519
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,110 ✭✭✭✭threeball


    Penn wrote: »
    Man kicking woman in crotch and woman kicking man in crotch = No difference

    Man slapping woman's arse and woman slapping man's arse = No difference

    Man slapping woman's arse and woman kicking man in crotch = Difference. It's a different action generally for a different reason with a different intent. It's a complete false equivalency.

    No a man never slapped a woman on the arse with an intent to hurt them, its always sexual?


  • #520
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    So a kick to the balls is sexual assault?



    To take it further, a woman touching a man on the arm, hands, or chest is sexual assault as women see biceps and chest in a sexualised manner in the same way men see an arse in a sexual manner?

    I've already posted the relevant definition of sexual battery (not assault) as it is applies where this took place. perhaps you might want to take a look at it.


  • #521
    threeball
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,110 ✭✭✭✭threeball


    jimgoose wrote: »
    An attractive young woman gets a slap on the arse from a passing man and you make out there's "nothing to suggest it had any sexual meaning"?? On what sodding planet? :pac:

    She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    threeball wrote: »
    She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

    What in the gasflowed fuck is that about? I don't touch people's arses in the pub, or anywhere else! :pac:


  • #523
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The law as it stands in the place where this took place makes no mention of intention. whether you claim your intent was sexual or not is irrelevant. you keep going back to this and it is irrelevant. All that is relevant isL Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent. and please dont go back to that nonsense about children. it isn't relevant.

    With all due respect, I was talking to someone who has stated on multiple occasions that the law is the law and should be treated as such.

    And to respond to you, why is it irrelevant with regards to children? Unless you agree, that common sense should be applied to law even if it contradicts the law.

    "Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent."

    Where do you draw the line then? It doesn't apply to children. Ok. Does it apply to an Aunt vs Niece, both of whom are of age where an aunt is encouraging a niece to collect an award?

    Of course it shouldn't.

    But if you cant tell me where the line is, the phrasing of the law is an ass (pun intended)

    So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

    My point was not that parents SHOULD be charged with sexual battery, it was to highlight the ambiguous way in which it is phrased and the way certain posters think it should be applied.


  • #524
    AustinLostin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭AustinLostin


    threeball wrote: »
    Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

    lol what, who does this. I will start to do arse tippy taps to herald my entrance.


  • #525
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    With all due respect, I was talking to someone who has stated on multiple occasions that the law is the law and should be treated as such.

    And to respond to you, why is it irrelevant with regards to children? Unless you agree, that common sense should be applied to law even if it contradicts the law.

    "Did you touch the person in a place that is considered sexual and did you have consent."

    Where do you draw the line then? It doesn't apply to children. Ok. Does it apply to an Aunt vs Niece, both of whom are of age where an aunt is encouraging a niece to collect an award?

    Of course it shouldn't.

    But if you cant tell me where the line is, the phrasing of the law is an ass (pun intended)


    So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

    My point was not that parents SHOULD be charged with sexual battery, it was to highlight the ambiguous way in which it is phrased and certain posters think it should be applied.

    It is not common sense. It is public policy. Public policy that parents should be allowed to do what is necessary to raise their children. whether that is changing a nappy or bathing them or slapping them on the arse the law recognises that all these are necessary and the law should not interfere as they are perfectly normal things to do for a parent. running up to a complete stranger and slapping them on the arse is not a normal thing to do.
    So unless you can prove that the man was acting in a sexual manner, then why should the law apply to him and not the aunt?

    There is no need to prove this at all. the law does not require it.


  • #526
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 37,875 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    threeball wrote: »
    No a man never slapped a woman on the arse with an intent to hurt them, its always sexual?

    I put the word "generally" there for a reason. Likewise, some men enjoy getting kicked in the balls by women, so that can be sexual too.


  • #527
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,088 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    ...there are many reasons outside of the specific remit of the law in place, where a smack on the bum isn't sexual?

    If that's your opinion, why do you think this incident where a man, who smacked a woman on the bottom once and did not pursue her further, should be classed as a sexual criminal and we should err on the side of caution to prevent him from working with children or the infirm?

    Or do you concede that the existing law should not be enacted as it is not representative to the circumstances within which this action took place?

    Well, if the guy was fulfilling some higher duty when he slapped her arse, then maybe he should use that as his defence. If he was slapping a poisonous spider off her arse for example. But he wasn't so it isn't relevant.

    I think they should just go ahead and prosecute in accordance with the law. He'll either be found guilty or not and be sentenced accordingly.

    Maybe slapping arses is actually a bit more serious than you take it to be.


  • #528
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    It is not common sense. It is public policy. Public policy that parents should be allowed to do what is necessary to raise their children. whether that is changing a nappy or bathing them or slapping them on the arse the law recognises that all these are necessary and the law should not interfere as they are perfectly normal things to do for a parent. running up to a complete stranger and slapping them on the arse is not a normal thing to do.

    .

    Ok, I'll concede the parent thing for the purpose of this conversation, but what about an aunt? By the letter of the law, is she not a sexual criminal?

    My point is again, not to lessen or negate what the man did (which I completely am against btw) it is to highlight how ambiguous the law is and that common sense should prevail.


  • #529
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Well, if the guy was fulfilling some higher duty when he slapped her arse, then maybe he should use the t as it's defence. If he was slapping a poisonous spider off her arse for example. But he wasn't so it isn't relevant.

    I tho k they should just go ahead and prosecute in accordance with the law. He'll either be found guilty or not and be sentenced accordingly.

    Maybe slapping arses is actually a bit more serious than you take it to be.

    Ah ok, you are back to just saying "the law is the law".

    Shame. I thought you were starting to think for yourself.


  • #530
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    I've already posted the relevant definition of sexual battery (not assault) as it is applies where this took place. perhaps you might want to take a look at it.


    Yeah, people should be able to make a coherent reply and argument tbh.


  • #531
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ok, I'll concede the parent thing for the purpose of this conversation, but what about an aunt? By the letter of the law, is she not a sexual criminal?

    My point is again, not to lessen or negate what the man did (which I completely am against btw) it is to highlight how ambiguous the law is and that common sense should prevail.

    If the aunt is acting in loco parentis then no, she is not a sexual criminal.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,088 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    threeball wrote: »
    She wasn't referring to the incident, she was speaking about a smack on the arse in general. Do you want to ride your female friends if you come up behind them in a pub and give them a tap on the arse to announce your arrival. Or your male friends at that

    That's not how I say hello to friends but you can do as you please with your mates.

    But I think you're avoiding the crucial part of that scenario which is the fact that they're you're friends, not strangers and it's in the pub so its a specific context (assuming that's part of your craic within your friends group on the pub).

    Would you approach strangers or work colleagues in work and slap their arse to announce your arrival?


  • #533
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    Okay, so the next time a woman touches me in a way I don't like, I am going to stamp on her uterus.
    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    Yeah, people should be able to make a coherent reply and argument tbh.

    Well your posts have been a shining example of same.


  • #534
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Well your posts have been a shining example of same.


    I agree. It's good to highlight the differences and is part of a coherent argument. Much better than stating an opinion, somebody asks you a question, and you do not form any kind of argument in return :P



    I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.


  • #535
    bfa1509
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,045 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    "The point here is that he took my power and I'm trying to take it back"

    So like many others, she used the power of her ass to get a job in media


  • #536
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    I agree. It's good to highlight the differences and is part of a coherent argument. Much better than stating an opinion, somebody asks you a question, and you do not form any kind of argument in return :P



    I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.

    he hasn't received any punishment. He will be charged with a misdeameanor so his punishment will be minor.


  • #537
    jimgoose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,237 ✭✭✭✭jimgoose


    Quadrature40 wrote: »
    So it's not sexual assault if it's an ugly woman?

    That isn't what I said, and you know well that isn't what I said.


  • #538
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,088 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Ah ok, you are back to just saying "the law is the law".

    Shame. I thought you were starting to think for yourself.

    Well, is the law not the law?

    You're free to campaign to get Georgia law (or Irish law) to reflect your views. In the mean time, if you don't understand why it's sexual assault to slap strangers arses, I suggest you just don't slap strangers arses.

    I'm fine with arse slapping strangers being classed as sexual assault. It ought to be at the low end of sexual assault, obviously.


  • #539
    Reviews and Books Galore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 964 ✭✭✭Reviews and Books Galore


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    he hasn't received any punishment. He will be charged with a misdeameanor so his punishment will be minor.


    He will be seen as a rapist, he will probably lose his job, his family will have a difficult time due to the loss of income, and he will have to face a media hate campaighn by 'Gloria Alfred' who is pretty much a lawyer that started metoo.



    His punishment is absurd.


  • #540
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,365 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    He will be seen as a rapist, he will probably lose his job, his family will have a difficult time due to the loss of income, and he will have to face a media hate campaighn by 'Gloria Alfred' who is pretty much a lawyer that started metoo.



    His punishment is absurd.

    maybe by you but i dont think anybody else will see him that way.


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,088 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »
    I still find it hilarious that I'm defending a man who tapped a woman on the bottom, but the level of punishment he is recieving is absurd.

    I'd say you defending the guy is about right given your posting history. I'm not at all surprised you're defending him and I've no idea why you're surprised.

    He hasn't had any legal punishment as yet and may not receive any at all. I suppose there are social consequences to your actions and actions caught on camera are there for all to see.


Advertisement
Advertisement