garda Sergeant Sexually assaults colleague

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

Repugnant, but true. I've seen some VERY dodgy sexual behaviour been tried on girls by good looking chaps in clubs, it either results in a kind of "ah you cheeky devil" response or an almost instant score. Not so good looking chap and the bouncers would have been called. It's a fact of life, doesn't mean that kind of thing is acceptable, just means certain females should check their priorities and standards.

I don't care. I know what people mean when they say some women are fine with a good-looking guy chatting them up but deem the same behaviour from a guy they don't fancy to be "creepy". But to think any woman at all would be ok with an actual sexual assault once it's by a good-looking guy is disturbing. It's particularly bad when women think it.

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

That's an extremely minute reason. It's like saying an American child may want Hershey's chocolate, so we should import in into every shop in the country.

Except wanting chocolate and being a traumatised victim of a serious crime are vastly different things.

Maybe there are female Gardaí on the force because they're actually good at their job?

Men are genetically the stronger sex, that doesn't mean that every male is stronger than every female. I could probably annihilate most of my male friends, despite them genetically being the stronger sex.

y0pperz wrote: »

This goes on in nightclubs around Dublin every single weekend, are they all sexual assaults also? Or is it just the context that decides (work = sexual assault, walking down the street = not ok, nightclub = acceptable) ? I'm being sincere

No, context doesn't decide whether or not it's sexual assault.

If it happened to me in a nightclub, I'd get away from the guy because it's still assault, but let's face it, nobody is going to take it very seriously in a nightclub unless the perpetrator does it again AFTER you reject his advances.

if it happened to me on the street, I'd call the gardaí.

If it happened to me in work (something worse happened to me in work), I'd report it to HR immediately.

Context doesn't change whether or not it's assault. context changes how you deal with it.

Jericho. wrote: »

There should probably be a separate category of crime for this kind of thing. Something more than bullying but less than sexual assault.

What, like 'not really so serious but still sexual assault' sexual assault?

Sexual assault is sexual assault. the problem in cases like the one in the OP is that some people seem to think that cases that are less severe than penetrative sexual assault don't count as sexual assault.

y0pperz wrote: »

I think what he's getting at is, grinding your hips against a woman's bottom for a few seconds "for a laugh" and full on penetrative raping/beating a woman shouldn't really be in the same category. It does kind of undermine the more serious offence.

they're not in the same category. One is sexual assault, one is rape.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Any sympathy for the victim left in there?

Just curious.

Are you insinuating that I don't have any sympathy for a woman who was repeatedly sexually assaulted?!?? I'm trying to tease out how, or why, a man managed to stay nearly 30 years in the job, but only managed to start doing this **** in the last 5 of his career.

Your post has totally aggravated me; you're playing the thanks-whore. Should we assume that anyone who hasn't expressed their sympathy for the victim is a misogynist, or apologist?

Ilik Urgee wrote: »

All counts for nothing now. A thug and a bully, wonder where his power trips started?

This is it, I don't get it. Either he has been doing this all along, or he's just snapped. It's not as if he started the job in the 1960's, he's been working through the 90's and 00's.

discus wrote: »

Are you insinuating that I don't have any sympathy for a woman who was repeatedly sexually assaulted?!?? I'm trying to tease out how, or why, a man managed to stay nearly 30 years in the job, but only managed to start doing this **** in the last 5 of his career.

Your post has totally aggravated me; you're playing the thanks-whore. Should we assume that anyone who hasn't expressed their sympathy for the victim is a misogynist, or apologist?

Never called you a misogynist or apologist but I find it strange on a thread about a woman being sexually assaulted in the workplace, you write nothing about the victim but only consider how horrible it must be for this man to go home and face his wife and kids after what he's done. I was just curious if you have the same amount of sympathy that you appear to show the criminal as you do the victim.

And why do you assume that he only started doing this shít in the last 5 years of his career?.In my experience people don't spend 20 years being a "decent" (as you call him) person and then suddenly start sexually assaulting women in the work place.

The man is a scumbag. He's been found guilty and took his punishment - I'm not a judge so it's not up to me to decide what punishment that is but at least he's been caught and found guilty. Hopefully it will give more men and women the courage to stand up to inappropriate behaviour like this.

By the way, I find it amusing you think I'm a thanks whore. Like I give a fúck what people on the internet think about me :pac:

Never called you a misogynist or apologist but I find it strange on a thread about a woman being sexually assaulted in the workplace, you write nothing about the victim but only consider how horrible it must be for this man to go home and face his wife and kids after what he's done. I was just curious if you have the same amount of sympathy that you appear to show the criminal as you do the victim

Surely it's a safe assumption that even if someone hasn't mentioned the victim, that their thoughts are with them, and not the guilty party.

And why do you assume that he only started doing this shít in the last 5 years of his career?.In my experience people don't spend 20 years being a "decent" (as you call him) person and then suddenly start sexually assaulting women in the work place.

It's 2013 now, his allegations came to light in 2010 according to the news piece, so I'm assuming that they happened in the year or two preceeding 2010, hence 5 years. I don't know the man, I don't want to know him, and I did not call him a decent person. I very obviously referred to his length of time in his job "with 29 years service and a sgt rank, he must be decent enough or they'd have gotten rid of him by now" Calling someone 'decent' at their job =/= calling them a decent person.