Garda found guilty of sexually assaulting and sexually harassing female colleagues

pharmaton wrote: »

It does but I don't even know from which direction. Lets not forget the Garda in question was found guilty on some specific charges. I would genuinely be concerned though if sexual harassment was that systemic that anyone on the receiving end of it would feel compelled to play along less they be consigned to the non team player rubbish dump.
tbh I'd probably have been a bit more imaginative with my Christmas present.

I very honestly believe that there is more to this. I think that things were running along and then something external hit the fan that caused all of this to be revisited.

Buying such a suggestive toy for the apparent perpetrator whose actions were so apparently vile does not ring true for the allegations made.
And we have to accept that that present was bought as the fact was not denied in court
Hopefully we will hear the full story soon enough.

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Current serving members as at September 2013
Commissioner: 1
Deputy Commissioner: 1
Assistant Commissioner: 8
Chief Superintendent: 44
Superintendent: 151
Inspector: 273
Sergeant: 1,874
Garda: 10,807
Total: 13,159

Considering the size of the force, two cases is hardly shocking and there are dickheads in all walks of life to be fair. Don't really get ya OP, are you disgusted by sexual harassment in the workplace or are you taking a pop at all gardai?

It's a national pastime in this country. I can imagine the number of people wringing their hands in glee at this story and dreaming up some story about an encounter they had with a guard to throw into the mix when they discuss it with others.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What is it about Letterkenny and bullying cases, remember that poor woman who was almost bullied to death in Letterkenny General Hospital a few years back by horrible co workers. When she complained the treatment got even worse. Some right scumbags around.

The court case was held in letterkenny. Neither the defendant or his colleagues were stationed in Letterkenny. Get your facts right before jumping to stupid conclusions.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What is it about Letterkenny and bullying cases, remember that poor woman who was almost bullied to death in Letterkenny General Hospital a few years back by horrible co workers. When she complained the treatment got even worse. Some right scumbags around.

What sticks in my mind is the bullying that certain Gardai and members of the public in Donegal were subjected to when mid to high ranking officers were trying to make wrong and fabricated charges stick.
In particular the treatment meeted out to the female Garda who was not prepared to go along with a conspiracy. Her house was raided ans she was subjected to other indignities; apparently because she choose to take the truthful road.
I would imagine that if the charges that stuck come back before the courts the defence will be abandoning the softly, softly approach.
Just my belief.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

There's no "alleged incident" or 'alleged offender" about it. The Garda Sergeant was found to be guilty.

The Sergeant says that one of the victims bought him novelty boxers.

First, that is not a sexual thing to do. Admittedly, it is not typically the behaviour of someone who feels sexually harassed.

And on that point, it is worth noting that the boxers were bought, by one victim, merely "after some of the incidents".

Some of the incidents: we do not know whether these incidents involved the Garda in question, nor of what degree of seriousness they were. It may be that the Garda thought that if she gave as good as she got, the Sergeant would lay off.

Or, it may be simply that these early incidents were not, taken alone, of a sufficient magnitude of seriousness for her to believe they necessitated a more serious response. It can be that the cumulative effect of someone's behaviour can be more harmful than early, niggling, aspects of the same behaviour.

Of course there was an alleged incident(s) and there was an alleged offender and there was a number of accusers.
Those are matters of fact-forgive me but sometimes I despair:rolleyes:

The fact that the court found, on the weight of evidence presented to it, that a small majority of the allegations were proven does not mean that there were no allegations, and for the purpose of this thread discussion we are discussing a continious action in the past.

It is disturbing the the prosecution failed to get a prosecution on 70% of the charges presented to the court.

Is this because they failed to prepare their case properly, and that should be very disturbing for the alleged victims.
Or is it because they accelerated a "bit of banter and horse play" out of proportion and put the extra failed 70% of charges against the accused in the hope that some will stick. And that is a bad situation for the accused.

Either way its a bad situation for the prosecution and when you couple that with the fact that the Judge not only felt obliged to throw I one of the charges out but he felt that he had to comment on the fact that everybody in a workplace would also be sublect to being so charged for workplace banter if he was to allow the charge to proceed

And when you put that with the fact that one of the accusers did, at a time at which she later alleged she was the victim of harassment and or sexual assault bought for and presented to the person she alleged was the perpetrator of such acts, a present of a sexually suggestive santa type toy.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Blame the victim, typical Irish 1950's type response.
Disgusting!

You took that sentence out of context, please have the decency to quote the whole post.
I think it was Shakespear who wrote
"The devil shall quote scripture for his purpose"

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Wrong, that quote is Biblical not Shakespearean.
You gave the sentence all the context it needed when you posted it.

My goodness you are wrong again. It was Shakespear in The Merchant of Venice.
And the accused was not a Sergeant either
And to your latest post.....I ...think that you should have a read of what the toy really was

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Red silk boxers - it really is. I'm certainly not a victim-blamer or suspicious of any woman who makes allegations of sexual harassment (as has become fashionable) but that element of the story is strange, not point in denying it.

It is strange from the point of view of the actions of the prosecution, when you take the whole prosecution into consideration, that they would put charges before the court that were so unprosecutiable that the judge had to intervene, with the comments he added and all but 70% of the other charges failed to get by the jury.
It is very wrong to put unprosecutiable charges against a citizen because, apart from the moral and legal implications this leads to suspicion of the prosecution case and invites gossip and conjecture.

This does not help the case for the accuser nor does it help the case of the accused.......and it askes the question if this was not a jury case would those other charges have been put before the court.
I think that they would not.
And then you ask the question why this was done. Was it incompetence on behalf of the prosecution or was it in order to get some to stick, a la mud slinging or to sow seeds in the minds of the jury that should not be sown.
Either way the victim will be the accuser or the accused and the might of the state will go unchecked

Gardai are humans too