nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

False rape accusation...who would you believe?

jeanjolie

False rape accusation is an unlikely though possibly frightening thing that can happen to a man. He can lose his job, lose friends, go on the sex offender list, and even if he's removed of it, vigilantes will probably attack him. I'm not aware of anyone in Ireland who has been accused but then again I don't have many male friends.

Getting to the point, rape is a pretty difficult crime to prosecute due to the nature (the act is legal itself), however on the unfortunate flip side, your 'character' and 'reputation' is usually judged regardless of evidence.

An example is n the US, a high number of false rape cases involved poor African American males due to their generally low socioeconomic status, high crime rates (for that racial group, not every black person). Even if they would never harm their children or girlfriend, the idea that 'If you've done this in the past, then you've probably done this or are capable of this' is very prevalent.

So now using an Irish example, if you go back to you secondary school as a teenager and knew this weird quiet lad who was quite creepy and made some sexual jokes and inappropriate jokes on and off. A girl you know in your social circle befriends this guy, they hang out and have rough anal sex, she doesn't like it, falls out with this guy and then she spreads this rumor that she was sodomized by this guy. Would you believe her? This guy is very weird and she does share weird things that he has said to her, but denies rape.

It's scary to think that a bunch of teen lads from my school would probably beat up the guy based of a lie like that, but then again he doesn't have a good reputation.

Realistically, what would you do?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

frozenfrozen

bubblypop wrote: »

Merely on secondment from work, no choice

What country? Please say england so I can laugh

iptba

By the same logic, we should stop warning children to be wary of strangers as that would be victim blaming.

[Deleted User]

frozenfrozen wrote: »

What country? Please say england so I can laugh

No.
Why would you want to laugh?
Do you think there are countries where people don't stop others from doing wrong?

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

By the same logic, we should stop warning children to be wary of strangers as that would be victim blaming.

While stranger danger has a place, the majority of crimes are, unfortunately, committed by people close to the child.
Family, close friends, trusted neighbours & family friends.

iptba

bubblypop wrote: »

While stranger danger has a place, the majority of crimes are, unfortunately, committed by people close to the child.
Family, close friends, trusted neighbours & family friends.

So we should stop warning children about strangers? It is victim blaming based on your logic to it seems.

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

So we should stop warning children about strangers? It is victim blaming based on your logic to it seems.

No, as I said, stranger danger has a place. But the majority of crimes against children are committed by people close to them.
I don't believe anyone would ever believe a child was to blame it they did speak to a stranger who did anything bad to them.

Do you think a child abused by a stranger should be held responsible if they spoke to the stranger?

py2006

bubblypop wrote: »

Do you think a child abused by a stranger should be held responsible if they spoke to the stranger?

Ah here now! Nobody is saying that. Children don't have the common sense and maturity of adults.

We are talking about adults being responsible for the actions. We have to do certain things in life so as not to put ourselves in potential danger.

[Deleted User]

py2006 wrote: »

Ah here now! Nobody is saying that. Children don't have the common sense and maturity of adults.

Another poster tried to draw this comparison, not me.
And you're right, children don't have the maturity of adults, which is why, when they commit crimes, we don't treat them like adult offenders.

iptba

bubblypop wrote: »

I don't believe anyone would ever believe a child was to blame it they did speak to a stranger who did anything bad to them.

So safety advice is based on whether there are some people in society who hold certain views? There are some people in society who hold all sorts of strange views, I don't think it should generally influence what safety advice is given out. Safety advice should be based on the facts and risk reduction.

py2006

Anyway, deciding you are not at fault for walking down a dark lane at nighttime on your own will be of very little comfort to you if you are beaten and robbed or worse.

[Deleted User]

For example, let's just say a female in your life, your sister, your friend, your daughter, comes home one day after a night out.
She tells you she was at a house party, great fun, with friends she knows for years, she got a bit drunk & can't really remember what happened. Pretty sure she wanted to go to bed, but then she wakes up with a man assaulting her.
Attempting to sexually assault her, or worse.
Do you believe she is in anyway responsible?

iptba

Let's just say a female in your life, your sister, your friend, your daughter, contacts you one day.
She tells you she was at home. She heard some noises and locked herself in a room.
She thought it might be a burglary, but wasn't sure. It was a very stressful situation when she became more and more convinced it was a burglary.
The burglars are disturbed by a car in the driveway and they run off.

The gardai are called. Among other things after investigating the scene, they recommend that an alarm and stronger doors be installed.

Are they saying she is responsible or are they just trying to be helpful and hoping to reduce the risk of a burglary in the future? Should they not recommend an alarm and stronger doors as it's suggesting the victim was in some way responsible or part responsible for the burglary?

Rather than being simply a hypothetical, something quite similar happened in my family.

Should alarms, stronger doors, etc. never be suggested as a way to reduce burglaries as it could be seen as a victim blaming?

py2006

bubblypop wrote: »

For example, let's just say a female in your life, your sister, your friend, your daughter, comes home one day after a night out.
She tells you she was at a house party, great fun, with friends she knows for years, she got a bit drunk & can't really remember what happened. Pretty sure she wanted to go to bed, but then she wakes up with a man assaulting her.
Attempting to sexually assault her, or worse.
Do you believe she is in anyway responsible?

In that context, no

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

Let's just say a female in your life, your sister, your friend, your daughter, contacts you one day.
She tells you she was at home. She heard some noises and locked herself in a room.
She thought it might be a burglary, but wasn't sure. It was a very stressful situation when she became more and more convinced it was a burglary.
The burglars are disturbed by a car in the driveway and they run off.

The gardai are called. Among other things after investigating the scene, they recommend that an alarm and stronger doors be installed.

Are they saying she is responsible or are they just trying to be helpful and hoping to reduce the risk of a burglary in the future? Should they not recommend an alarm and stronger doors as it's suggesting the victim was in some way responsible or part responsible for the burglary?

Rather than being simply a hypothetical, something quite similar happened in my family.

Should alarms, stronger doors, etc. never be suggested as a way to reduce burglaries as it could be seen as a victim blaming?

This is a ridiculous scenario. Security advise, is merely that, advise. Nothing to do with victim blaming. Nobody blames a burglary victim after the fact, because they don't have an alarm.
A victim of a burglary is never in any way responsible.
What you suggested earlier about intoxicated people is that they need to take responsibility for the crimes that are inflicted upon them, they don't. They are in no way responsible.
Should a member of the public require or ask for security advise, then the Gardai will give it to them. They will never suggest that someone is in someway responsible for their home being broken into because they don't have an alarm.

& I can assure you 100% Gardai will never ever tell a victim of sexual assault that they are in anyway responsible for an assault on themselves. No matter what.

iptba

bubblypop wrote: »

This is a ridiculous scenario. Security advise, is merely that, advise.

Similarly, suggesting people avoid getting intoxicated, particularly in some situations, can also similarly be seen simply as advice.

bubblypop wrote: »

Nobody blames a burglary victim after the fact, because they don't have an alarm.
A victim of a burglary is never in any way responsible.

The implication of advising an alarm and better outside doors is that they could have reduced the risk with these measures.

bubblypop wrote: »

Should a member of the public require or ask for security advise, then the Gardai will give it to them. They will never suggest that someone is in someway responsible for their home being broken into because they don't have an alarm.

And yet, in your world, that is exactly what they did when they advised getting alarm and getting better, more secure outside doors.

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

And yet, in your world, that is exactly what they did when they advised getting alarm and getting better, more secure outside doors.

No, in my world, if they required security advise, then they would be given it.
They would never be in any way responsible for some other scrote breaking into their house.

iptba

bubblypop wrote: »

No, in my world, if they required security advise, then they would be given it.
They would never be in any way responsible for some other scrote breaking into their house.

So in your world should people be advised to get alarms and spend a lot of money getting more secure doors?
It seems unfair, given "they would never be in any way responsible for some other scrote breaking into their house." They could have lots of other things they would prefer to spend their money on.

Based on your earlier comments, it seems that, in your world, instead we should solely tell people they shouldn't burgle.

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

So in your world should people be advised to get alarms and spend a lot of money getting more secure doors?
It seems unfair, given "they would never be in any way responsible for some other scrote breaking into their house." They could have lots of other things they would prefer to spend their money on.

Based on your earlier comments, it seems that, in your world, instead we should solely tell people they shouldn't burgle.

No, in my world, which BTW, deals with victims of crime everyday, we would supply security advise, should a victim require it. Or should anyone require it.
But the fact that someone doesn't have an alarm on their premises does not mean that they are in anyway responsible for any crime committed against them.
Surely you understand that?

And, yes, as a society, we should tell people that they should not break into other people's property. That's normal is it not?

iptba

bubblypop wrote: »

But the fact that someone doesn't have an alarm on their premises does not mean that they are in anyway responsible for any crime committed against them.
Surely you understand that?

Yes, I understand that it doesn't make anyone responsible for being burgled.

I also understand it [not having an alarm] increases the risk of actually been burgled, so it can be worthwhile spending the money on an alarm and other security devices without necessarily accepting one is responsible for being burgled.

It's you who seems to be have difficulty with this concept and seem to think that suggestions for harm reduction should be not allowed in some areas.

bubblypop wrote: »

And, yes, as a society, we should tell people that they should not break into other people's property. That's normal is it not?

I have no problem telling people they shouldn't break into other people's property. I don't recommend that as a single approach and would encourage people to reduce the risk of being burgled; similarly, I would encourage people to reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted while at the same time telling society that they shouldn't sexually assault people. It's not an "either or" scenario.

iptba

I think it would be a sad world if advice ceased to be given out to help people reduce the risk of harm due to the fear of personal attacks from people who implied any such suggestions were victim blaming. Lots of our progress as a society has been obtained by learning to reduce risk.

[Deleted User]

iptba wrote: »

I would encourage people to reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted while at the same time telling society that they shouldn't sexually assault people. It's not an "either or" scenario.

I'm not sure it is worth my while spending any more of my time trying to explain such concepts to you.

You seem to think that telling people not to be intoxicated, that that is somehow helping people not being sexually assaulted!

You genuinely don't understand, and clearly never will, until a female you are close to, tells you she is a victim.
Perhaps then you will understand!

And you really don't have to explain your rubbish concepts to me, I have been dealing with victims for over 20 years.

iptba

bubblypop wrote: »

You genuinely don't understand, and clearly never will, until a female you are close to, tells you she is a victim.
Perhaps then you will understand!

I would be disappointed with myself if a personal experience whether it be a burglary or something else completely clouded my judgement and led me to think that warnings should never be given out that might reduce exposure to risk.

I would see that as regressing to a less nuanced view.

I'm grateful that the garda gave out the security advice after the burglary though it would have been even better if the security advice could have been enacted in advance as it might have prevented the burglary.

I hope more things won't be added to the list where some deem it unacceptable for discussions about risk reduction to be had.

iptba

On a US government agency website:

SEXUAL ASSAULT AND ALCOHOL:
WHAT THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE TELLS US

https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/sexualassault.pdf

jimwallace197

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/comedian-sil-fox-set-to-sue-state-over-sex-assault-case-dismissal-39311141.html

Good to see this, I hope he takes them to the cleaners and also that charges are brought against this woman for this malicious accusation and what he had to go through.

Disgraceful that charges were even brought in the first place. The DPP have some neck on them considering there was blatant cctv footage that proved she was a liar.

Only worry is how many men out there have suffered similar and we havent heard about it.

Caquas

jimwallace197 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/comedian-sil-fox-set-to-sue-state-over-sex-assault-case-dismissal-39311141.html

Good to see this, I hope he takes them to the cleaners and also that charges are brought against this woman for this malicious accusation and what he had to go through.

....

Ah, bless.

He’ll get a large lump of money from the government but no one responsible will suffer the slightest inconvenience. Not even the embarrassment of having their failings exposed in open court. His accuser is the last woman you will ever see in the dock.

His solicitor (from Belfast, local firms don’t fancy this fight) will maximise his client’s demands, knowing that the State will buy him off on the steps of the court. But expect long procedural delays because...well, he’s 87 years of age and there is one way in which his case might not be concluded. Frank McBrearty won €3 Million in a settlement of his malicious prosecution case so we are talking serious money here.

The DPP will sail far above this turbulence. She (and the Gardai) will be protected by the “believe her” brigade. She came up through the ranks in the DPP’s Office but cases like this might win her an appointment to the Bench.

The role of the media will be at issue in this case because a central claim which Sil Fox makes concerns the failure to protect his privacy (while the accuser will never be named). Contrast the extensive coverage of the case in the media and the lack of follow up coverage when the case was thrown out. I expect the media will report on this civil case without comment or investigation.

I used to get angry thinking of the taxpayers’ money spent on negligence claims but now I see Sinn Fein wants to give us all €200 vouchers and I begin to think of it differently. This is just helicopter money and what harm if we shower an elderly gentleman with, say, three thousand vouchers to spend as he (and his heirs and assignees) may please.
And surely you wouldn’t begrudge our legal eagles a few guineas after months of lockdown?

daithi7

Tbh, i don't blame him for suing at all, but I think his beef should really be with the judge who allowed the media report on the charges & the case. This was gratuitous & totally unnecessary in this case. If he had been proven guilty, there would have been time enough to publicise his guilt , etc. But in opening that can of worms, the judge ruined a man's reputation, without due process, very poor professional judgement by the judge imho.

Yes, the DPP were also proven to have a dud case when her account was disproved by cctv evidence, but while that is sloppy, that is not the issue really imho. The DPP have to be able to bring a case where they feel there may a case to be answered. It was the handling of the case by the courts that is the issue imho.

That, and also the false allegation of the woman, who I hope gets prosecuted for the terrible trouble she has caused , probably looking for blackmail 'silencing' money....

Now the DPP should prosecute her & let the result be broadcast imho...

joeguevara

I’m against court reporting in any case until conviction. Too many people don’t even wait for the conviction.

In the case mentioned above, it’s probable the civil case could take years as it’s a test case and opens the door to similar actions and DPP will probably argue common good that if they are restricted in bringing cases where cctv can be used in favour of defendant, that real cases wouldnt get to jury.

Judge nit imposing restrictions is disgraceful. No matter what he gets, it’s not going to make good such a terrible ordeal in his latter years.

iptba

Sil Fox: ‘My phone went silent. Nobody rang’
Jennifer O'Connell Jun 27, 2020

SIL FOX HASN’T REALLY BEEN HIMSELF SINCE THE DAY IN EARLY 2019 WHEN HE GOT A PHONE CALL ASKING HIM TO COME DOWN TO A GARDA STATION

https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/stage/sil-fox-my-phone-went-silent-nobody-rang-1.4287491

Sil also plans to campaign to have the law changed so that people accused of sexual assault are not named until or unless they’re found guilty. “Sil Fox was not entitled to anonymity because this was an alleged offence that’s deemed less serious” than rape or other sexual offences, Kevin Winters says.

He pulls a piece of paper up from the side of the chair and reads from it. “All shows were cancelled straight away, including RTÉ Radio. I used to get strange looks from people. I lost interest in going out. I had to go to a counsellor every week. I’m on prescription drugs. I’m not sleeping very well. I lost weight; I used to be a 36” waist; now I’m 34”. I avoided meeting people. There were a few funerals I wanted to go to that I couldn’t go to. My phone went silent. Nobody rang, except some friends. Real friends. Some of my so-called friends never rang to play golf.”

py2006

Absolutely no mention of that woman who targeted that poor elderly man. No doubt hoping to cash in.

Why isn't she named and shamed, why isn't she sitting at home reluctant to leave the house. Why aren't her friends not calling. Why isn't SHE being punished by the law??

iptba

Information key in supporting sexual assault victims - Blackwell

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0806/1157616-sexual-offences-review-reaction/

A working group was set up to review legislation here following a high-profile trial in Northern Ireland in 2018.

Among the recommendations of the group, which were published in a report today, all victims of sexual offences should have the opportunity to receive free legal advice.

Interesting to see all the use of the term "victim" in this report. I also just heard it by another report author on the news on Newstalk.

It's not a neutral term and basically doesn't give a presumption of innocence to the defendant.