“Senior politician, household name” sexually assaults girl [ NO NAMES ]

Gruffalox wrote: »

That is not what is happening in this case . The tweeter is not seeking justice. (Quite what they are doing I have wondered.)
Tweeting sexual assault accusations about unnamed people is not useful to her re justice.

That's not really the salient point those, is it? The urge to ridicule, criticise and diminish a claimant coming forward is exactly the same as what happened with those people. It's some people's natural instinct to oppose a person claiming they were assaulted.

Do you think all these people opposing the claimant for whatever reasons, would suddenly take a different approach if she had gone to the police? Not a chance. The reasons would need to change but their stance would definitely be the exact same.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Perhaps it's his "lived experience"?

Who's lived experience?

Shavery Bullock

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Did he actually sat anecdotal? Because that is not a denial.

He dismissed hundreds of reports of sexual assault, made to the police, as 'anecdotal'.

He's a scummy little man and I have no sympathy for him.

Tell me how wrote: »

But not when it comes to women talking about the abuse they have suffered. If it didn't happen in the last few days, they didn't go to the Gardai about it and they don't have concrete evidence or supporting witnesses, then, they really should stop talking about it. Shouldn't they?

I'm all for discussion (what else is Boards for after all) and when you see some talk about a 'false claim culture' like that is what the big problem in society is then a discussion most definitely needs to be had.

Should we apply the same approach to all posts on boards? No-one can post about their work problem or their consumer problem or their relationship problem until they have concrete evidence, and they show that they've previously raised it?

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Yes, but you see the issue is, is that what has become common in recent times is that even if a woman has no credit-ability (lying about details), coming forward after a very long period of time (even though she was an adult when it happened) & is completely inconsistent in what she is saying, she will still be believed/allowed to proceed and ruin a mans life through a false allegation of rape.

How common really are false allegations of rape? Give us a number, for Ireland?

Better Than Christ wrote: »

Boards has become a real cesspool recently. If the admins give a fuck about the site and the sinister direction they've allowed it to take, they'll have a long, hard look at this thread in particular.

My thoughts exactly.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Has the woman posted any details about what actually happened?

Did he rub her leg and then just stop? Did he talk to her later and try seduce her?

Did she say anything out loud or confront him?

I'm asking because I've never understood what a guy gets from touching a leg or rubbing up against a women in the office or the hands on the shoulders.

Is a hand on the leg all this politician needs to blow his load? Although I'd say he probably isn't able to even get an erection which is why he is afraid to just ask for sex.

It's about power, not sex.

Shavery Bullock

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

There has been an increasing amount of posts over the past several weeks which are identical to this one. Coming from a specific group of users (pressure gang) that get upset because they cannot control the thread, who then resort to manipulative posting style such as the one above.

People have become fed up with a lot of issues that have and are continuing to affect us as a country and as individuals, but topics on here are more prevalent for a reason because they are valid and should be spoken about, you just don't like the fact we are!!

Well said. These people complain that Boards is a 'cesspit of racism and sexism' and yet they still spend 18 hours a day posting here.

NIMAN

So is this person telling us she was groped but is stopping at that? Like a little teaser?

Or is she going to take the person up for sexual assault?

I don't get it?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's about power, not sex.

its about attention, not justice.

there is a middle ground, of course

but in a rush to either side to berate or deny its lost almost immediately

an unwelcome hand on your leg shouldn't be anywhere near the language of sexual assault

legions of fellas online and off shouldnt be claiming that de wimmin are out to ruin there lives as a result of it coming up in discussion

but very very few people seem to want to advance a dialogue to move from the unsatisfactory situation we currently have - very very difficult to address/prove genuine cases of assault, so piling on on twitter and castigating anyone not down with the righteous cause- so here we stay, for now, locked in a loop

Shavery Bullock wrote: »

He dismissed hundreds of reports of sexual assault, made to the police, as 'anecdotal'.

He's a scummy little man and I have no sympathy for him.

Yes but he essential told the police that the accusation were not necessarily true.

This is not a denial.

This twitter thing and these people being accused - is it all Irish?

People have mentioned actors, comedians, etc so I googled it just to see what impact it is having on the news but I found nothing except some "prominent" Irish comedian who I have never heard of before and have already forgotten his name.

No chaos in political life, no actors, etc.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK and you might think that's clever but I doubt you'd support the same suspicion that sports coaches are in camouflage to get close to children or teachers are camouflaged deviants.

Its precisely because some pedophiles became sports coaches or ( more rarely) teachers that we have background checks these days.

I'd just wait to see if there's evidence rather than casting asperaions because you don't like someone's political views.

Its standard human practice to hide your real nature by an outward display of morality, this is what abusers hiding behind religion have been doing for years.

Silentcorner wrote: »

And you'd have been at the forefront...leading the change back then too right!!!

...

Don't kid yourself El Duderino...if we were back in the day, you'd be a pious nun.

I'd take the exact same approach then as I do now. I'd take any allegation of that severity, seriously. I'd say it should e investigated and conclusions should be reached only when or if there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion on the claim. The absence of sufficient evidence means I can't reach any conclusions.

Likewise the ones who oppose the claimant now would have opposed the claimants back then too. They start with the conclusion and work from there. Evidence isn't important as they've started with the conclusion - the exact same as the ones who believe a claim without evident.

I'm very happy with my position of waiting for evidence to form a conclusion.

Shavery Bullock wrote: »

Well said. These people complain that Boards is a 'cesspit of racism and sexism' and yet they still spend 18 hours a day posting here.

100% the worst thing about boards right now are the nose-holders dropping "cesspit" everywhere every time somebody dares discuss something they dislike.

inutterably precious behaviour

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's about power, not sex.

Yes I know that is a common thing in harassment and such but I mean is the hand on the leg all he has because his penis doesn't work?

I didnt think that a hand on a knee was legally an assault but apparently it is. In the UK at least.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/former-gchq-chief-fined-admitting-assault-sexualised-game-dinner/

Shavery Bullock wrote: »

If you're going to dismiss hundreds of reports of very serious sexual assault as anecdotal then you're a dickhead imo.

Yes but I think maybe I'm not explaining what I mean.

So a bunch of women in Germany call the police, they come to see and say "you've been accused by several women of sexual assault" and he essentially says to the police "those accusation are not necessarily true - it might be true but it might not"

Spon Farmer wrote: »

Yes I know that is a common thing in harassment and such but I mean is the hand on the leg all he has because his penis doesn't work?

No you cretin. It's a "pass". Or it was considered a pass in the old days. If you moved it away it was a no, kept it there and it was a maybe.

He was hardly going to get his schlong out.

FVP3 wrote: »

Its precisely because some pedophiles became sports coaches or ( more rarely) teachers that we have background checks these days.

Its standard human practice to hide your real nature by an outward display of morality, this is what abusers hiding behind religion have been doing for years.

So are you comfortable with suspecting all sports coaches and teachers etc. of being deviants who don't have a record that would show up on a background check yet? I really doubt you do and you're just taking this approach in this instance because it suits to slag a group you don't like.

If this was another thread about suspecting all male teachers of being deviants, the same posters would know it's out of order.

FVP3 wrote: »

I didnt think that a hand on a knee was legally an assault but apparently it is. In the UK at least.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/04/former-gchq-chief-fined-admitting-assault-sexualised-game-dinner/

In the case in question the politician didn't just put his hand on the knee (which let us be honest is douchbaggy enough) but "put his hand up her leg".

It is not very detailed but my first thought is up her skirt (or outside it) but in the direction of and close to her vagina.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So are you comfortable with suspecting all sports coaches and teachers etc. of being deviants who don't have a record that would show up on a background check yet?

No I didn't say that, now did I. What I did say was some people did in fact become sports coaches because they were pedophiles.

I really doubt you do and you're just taking this approach in this instance because it suits to slag a group you don't like.

I didn't say anything specifically about male feminists either, so not sure what that is about. That said it's probably true that a percentage are suspect.

If you were the kind of guy who secretly assaulted or "emotionally bullied" women then the last thing you would do is be misogynist on twitter. Instead cover your tracks.

Spon Farmer wrote: »

In the case in question the politician didn't just put his hand on the knee (which let us be honest is douchbaggy enough) but "put his hand up her leg".

It is not very detailed but my first thought is up her skirt (or outside it) but in the direction of and close to her vagina.

Yes, I didn't read it like that but you might be right.

Gruffalux

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's not really the salient point those, is it? The urge to ridicule, criticise and diminish a claimant coming forward is exactly the same as what happened with those people. It's some people's natural instinct to oppose a person claiming they were assaulted.

Do you think all these people opposing the claimant for whatever reasons, would suddenly take a different approach if she had gone to the police? Not a chance. The reasons would need to change but their stance would definitely be the exact same.

My attitude would be different if she had gone to the police, confronted the person or sought the counsel of a friend or helper. The tweeting is the part I find odd. She is not "coming forward" - she is doing the opposite. She is dangling something publicly. Really, for her own well being she should not have used Twitter to accuse.
For example if she had Tweeted "A man slipped his hand up my leg at dinner" and left it at that, the response would be quite different. Most people would likely think what a nasty occurence, horrid person who did that, hope you're okay Aisling. Or I might say Hope you tipped his wine in his lap, the fcuker. Etc. Some people might say "And......" because to be honest I doubt there is a lady who exists and even many a chap who has not known an unwelcome touch in a lifetime.
But it is the addition of "senior politician" that gives the frisson, the prurient factor. Now she has notoriety. Now people want to guess who the horrid but famous person is. He is a household name. Hmmmm. Who could it be? Now the net is cast over a certain shoal of fish and people can point spears at captive ones. But she will never name him, she vows. Among other things she doesnt want to hurt his family.
Come on! Don't press post then, Aisling. That is not the thing to do to be an honest person. Go to the police is honest. Go to his door is honest. Or not having chosen those options, let it go. In my opinion.

FVP3 wrote: »

No you cretin. It's a "pass". Or it was considered a pass in the old days. If you moved it away it was a no, kept it there and it was a maybe.

He was hardly going to get his schlong out.

What is with the name calling, dick breath? Why are your knickers a twist?

Hand on the leg was dickless move back then and it is a dickless move now.

Any man with a functioning penis will talk to a woman and not try to hump her leg like a confused Jack Russell while she is eating a roast potato.

Gregor Samsa

FVP3 wrote: »

No you cretin. It's a "pass". Or it was considered a pass in the old days. If you moved it away it was a no, kept it there and it was a maybe

Girls wearing short skirts or low cut tops were thought to be “asking for it” in the old days.

This may shock you, but it turns out that women weren’t really into that whole way of communicating.

political analyst

This evening on Twitter, Aisling Twomey accused JK Rowling of insisting that the lives of transgender people are less worthy than her life.

FVP3 wrote: »

No I didn't say that, now did I. What I did say was some people did in fact become sports coaches because they were pedophiles.

I didn't say anything specifically about male feminists either, so not sure what that is about. That said it's probably true that a percentage are suspect.

If you were the kind of guy who secretly assaulted or "emotionally bullied" women then the last thing you would do is be misogynist on twitter. Instead cover your tracks.

I'd just wait for evidence before I'd cast asperaions. Wouldn't you think that's a sensible approach?

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Girls wearing short skirts or low cut tops were thought to be “asking for it” in the old days.

This may shock you, but it turns out that women weren’t really into that whole way of communicating.

I wasn't really defending the hand on the knee, just pointing out that it was considered a pass. Although in this case as he wasn't talking to her it was probably a bit of douchebaggery.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'd just wait for evidence before I'd cast asperaions. Wouldn't you think that's a sensible approach?

I am talking in general and not about aspersions. Not sure if we are talking at cross purposes or not. My point is merely that hypocrites be hypocrites.

Gruffalox wrote: »

My attitude would be different if she had gone to the police,...

And if she goes to the police now will your attitude totally change? Of course it wouldn't. You'd just have different reasons for holding the same attitude. So would all the same posters who always start with the anti-accuser conclusion.

That's the problem with starting with a conclusion based on bias. The job then becomes about fitting the arguements to the conclusion.