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

garda Sergeant Sexually assaults colleague

y0pperz

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-sergeant-avoids-jail-for-sexually-assaulting-female-colleague-29337178.html

While I agree this behavior has absolutely no place in a professional environment, I was shamefully in stitches laughing reading through it.

A judge heard that he pushed his pelvic region against the woman's behind, grabbed her hips and began gyrating while saying, “she likes it this way”.

She said that once when officers were asked if they would work at the Dublin Horse Show, Woods had said her “Do you want to go to that? You are good at riding.”

In 2012 Woods had also been convicted and fined at Dublin District Court for sexually assaulting another female officer by groping her leg before telling her “I'd say you're some screamer in bed”.

So what are your thoughts ? Was the judge correct in just imposing a fine, or should he have received a custodial sentence.. In my opinion he should be on stage doing stand-up or given his own TV show.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Femme_Fatale

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.

Esoteric_

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

The real question which needs to be tackled here is: should she have been there to get sexually assaulted in the first place? Should women really be allowed to become police officers in the case of there already being an adequate number of willing male potential recruitments available? Seemingly men are much better suited to this physically demanding job, considering the fact they are the stronger sex. Wouldn't that mean that the recruiters have a right to select them over women, just as the most fit people get chosen in any other recruitment situation?

My friend was raped and was too terrified to speak to a male police officer in case she was raped again (trauma does funny things to you). So i'd say some police women are vital.

CarlDunne1979

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

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.

I'm not talking about chatting up, I'm talking about full on groping from behind, the kind most people would rightly consider a form of assault. When they turn around and see that he's good looking they smile and perhaps shift, if he's not so hot, they feel violated.

I'm just saying, many women who would normally complain about "double standards" would hypocritically do the aforementioned thing in the nightclub with fellas. These women give the decent ones a bad reputation.

CarlDunne1979

Esoteric_ wrote: »

My friend was raped and was too terrified to speak to a male police officer in case she was raped again (trauma does funny things to you). So i'd say some police women are vital.

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.

Esoteric_

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.

Micky Dolenz

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

The real question which needs to be tackled here is: should she have been there to get sexually assaulted in the first place? Should women really be allowed to become police officers in the case of there already being an adequate number of willing male potential recruitments available? Seemingly men are much better suited to this physically demanding job, considering the fact they are the stronger sex. Wouldn't that mean that the recruiters have a right to select them over women, just as the most fit people get chosen in any other recruitment situation?

Mod.

I'm just going to stop you here.

[Deleted User]

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

I'm not talking about chatting up, I'm talking about full on groping from behind, the kind most people would rightly consider a form of assault. When they turn around and see that he's good looking they smile and perhaps shift, if he's not so hot, they feel violated.

I'm just saying, many women who would normally complain about "double standards" would hypocritically do the aforementioned thing in the nightclub with fellas. These women give the decent ones a bad reputation.

You sound kind of familiar to me. Or at least this bizarre thinking does.

I think you have a sort of predisposition to thinking this is common. You'll always see plenty to confirm your bias when you look for it, and interpretation bias is even more likely if you've had a few drinks.

I don't think it's as prevalent as you say, or you're socialising in some very niche places. I don't know anyone who thinks a groping from behind from a stranger equals a flirtatious introduction.

y0pperz

Esoteric_ wrote: »

The woman WAS 'properly' sexually assaulted. He was grinding his crotch against her ass. That's a pretty easily identifiable assault.

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

Esoteric_

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.

The King of Moo

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

They're all sexual assaults. The location or the intention of the assailant doesn't matter.

Jericho.

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

[Deleted User]

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.

But it was sexual assault.

Esoteric_

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

Candie wrote: »

But it was sexual assault.

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.

Esoteric_

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.

Jericho.

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.

Exactly, thanks. More similar to way some drugs are classed as more serious than others if that makes sense.

discus

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?

y0pperz

Esoteric_ wrote: »

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

Legal Definition: Sexual Assaults; sections 2 and 3 of the criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990 provide for the offences of aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. Aggravated sexual assault means a sexual assault involving serious violence or the threat of serious violence, or a sexual assault that causes injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature. This offence also carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Sexual assault itself is not defined in the Act. It used to be known as 'indecent assault', and is still generally understood to mean an assault in circumstances of 'indecency'. This offence covers a range of conduct, from non-consensual sexual touching to a sexual attack just falling short of rape. It carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. Both types of sexual assault are gender neutral.

Still shouldn't be in the same category imo, I see his point.

discus

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.

YumCha

y0pperz wrote: »

Still shouldn't be in the same category imo, I see his point.

What about the part of the sentence you didn't bold?

jaffacakesyum

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:

[Deleted User]

y0pperz wrote: »

Still shouldn't be in the same category imo, I see his point.

You overlooked the important part.

This offence covers a range of conduct, from non-consensual sexual touching to a sexual attack just falling short of rape. It carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. Both types of sexual assault are gender neutral.

That's both ends of the spectrum. It's a continuum with non-consensual sexual touching on one end, to a sexual attack just falling short of rape at the other.

It's the same category, but recognition is given to the level of aggression/intrusion/invasion inside that range of behaviours.

I suppose it's to stop people deciding that what the victim says is sexual assault wasn't really assault if the guy was just having a laugh.

Because that never happens.

discus

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.

Clandestine

Esoteric_ wrote: »

I don't see how you found any of that funny.

I had a small laugh too, but only because his comments were just so cheesy and ridiculous I couldn't help myself.

Not trying to take away anything from the reality of the crime here.

Jimmy 5F

Shocking behaviour. Most definitely sexual assault.

On a separate note, how do you define sexual assault?

what areas do you need touch, is griping the thigh sexual assault, the knee, stroking the earlobe etc..

Is it more about the motivation behind or the actual location touched and where do those borders end. The inner wrist can be an erogenous zone for example.

Dyr

A copper should know the law regarding this, sounds like a durtbag.

Maybe he'll be sent to do a course on affiction for gards

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VODUI787noc

eireannBEAR

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Yes. They're utter bints for doing it. Why the assumption people wouldn't care?

you wouldnt, the content of your posts are proof of that.

[Deleted User]

eireannBEAR wrote: »

you wouldnt, the content of your posts are proof of that.

I read FF's posts with interest. I've NEVER seen her utter that kind of sentiment.

eireannBEAR

Candie wrote: »

I read FF's posts with interest. I've NEVER seen her utter that kind of sentiment.

you must be blind. now stop trying to cause trouble please.

[Deleted User]

eireannBEAR wrote: »

you must be blind. now stop trying to cause trouble please.

Wind it in. You threw out an accusation and unless you can show something to back it up you can expect to be called on it.