False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Deep Thought · 07-05-2020 5:42pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

This happened because a Democrat was president, Biden has vowed to reverse due process for young men....

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/biden-vows-a-quick-end-to-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-241715

Whatever you think of Trump, the Democrats are a joke...trying to keep the angry feminists on board by continuing to deny young men in college due process (something that is costing the colleges in class action suits) and simultaneously ignoring the serious accusations that Biden himself is facing....there is a good chance that Biden is so medicated he has no recollection that he is actually running in a presidential race!!

i dont even know where to begin with this..

iptba · 09-05-2020 2:02am

iptba wrote: »

(US)

https://news.yahoo.com/devos-announces-title-ix-cementing-212227203.html

I'm no expert on US politics, but get the impression this might not have happened if a Democrat was president. Many I think would have run away from the idea of getting involved in support of the accused.

I wasn't aware of the following when I posted:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/496518-biden-says-hell-reverse-devos-rule-to-bolster-protections-for-those-accused

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Wednesday that if he’s elected president, he will reverse a rule issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos aimed at bolstering protections for students who are accused of sexual assault on university campuses.

iptba · 27-05-2020 2:52pm

Veteran comedian Sil Fox cleared of sexually assaulting woman at Dublin bar

The woman made a specific allegations that Fox had put his left on her groin and tickled her vagina for 30 seconds as the photo was taken.

The CCTV evidence was shown to her and she still maintained that he had sexually assaulted her. She had accepted the footage showed his hand on the table the entire time it took for the photo to be taken.

The only time his hand was not visible was for three seconds after the photo was taken, not 30 seconds.

https://www.thejournal.ie/sil-fox-sexual-assault-cleared-courts-5109092-May2020/

After the decision was delivered, Fox, who was brought to court by his son Cyril, told reporters he has been through “months of hell”.

“My health, physically and mentally, has deteriorated and I have endured countless nights with little or no sleep,” he said.

All his shows were cancelled because of the case but he is now looking forward to getting back to work, the entertainer said.

Silentcorner · 27-05-2020 7:28pm

iptba wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/sil-fox-sexual-assault-cleared-courts-5109092-May2020/

How did that make it to a court?

How was she not charged?

The poor man was in his 80s!!!!

LillySV · 27-05-2020 7:32pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

How did that make it to a court?

How was she not charged?

The poor man was in his 80s!!!!

I hope she has to pay her own legal expenses at least

Silentcorner · 27-05-2020 7:37pm

LillySV wrote: »

I hope she has to pay her own legal expenses at least

The DPP took the case, she didn't she is treated as a witness in the case so she had no expenses.

Cases like this one were easy to dismiss, it wasn't even a he said she said scenario, it was a she said and CCTV footage completely exposed her nonsense scenario.

The poor man at that age of his life!!!

LillySV · 27-05-2020 7:56pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

The DPP took the case, she didn't she is treated as a witness in the case so she had no expenses.

Cases like this one were easy to dismiss, it wasn't even a he said she said scenario, it was a she said and CCTV footage completely exposed her nonsense scenario.

The poor man at that age of his life!!!

Disgraceful.... That person shouldn’t get away with it ... and neither should Dpp.. should be made pay damages to him for taking such a ridiculous case

Caquas · 27-05-2020 9:16pm

LillySV wrote: »

Disgraceful.... That person shouldn’t get away with it ... and neither should Dpp.. should be made pay damages to him for taking such a ridiculous case

The media take on Sil Fox:

- If he had died of COVID-19, he would be a national treasure, front page eulogies.

- If he had been convicted in this case, he would be the devil incarnate,

- as he is acquitted, he will be forgotten.

The nightmare he has endured at the hands of the DPP is what awaits anyone accused of a sexual offence, regardless of the evidence.

But for that CCTV, he would have died in jail as the lowest of the low.

Meanwhile, violent criminals lead the Gardai a merry dance

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-with-more-than-170-convictions-brought-garda%C3%AD-on-high-speed-chase-1.4262324

Darc19 · 27-05-2020 9:21pm

The problem is Gung ho gardai who make up their minds that someone is guilty and skew all evidence to that.

Far too many inexperienced gardai out there with little to no oversight by properly trained professionals.

Even at the start of this case it was obvious to most people that there was no case to answer.

The woman's story did not add up and witnesses that were in her group did not corroborate her story.

I hope Sil Fox takes a case for malicious prosecution.

jimwallace197 · 27-05-2020 9:25pm

Caquas wrote: »

The media take on Sil Fox:

- If he had died of COVID-19, he would be a national treasure, front page eulogies.

- If he had been convicted in this case, he would be the devil incarnate,

- as he is acquitted, he will be forgotten.

The nightmare he has endured at the hands of the DPP is what awaits anyone accused of a sexual offence, regardless of the evidence.

But for that CCTV, he would have died in jail as the lowest of the low.

Meanwhile, violent criminals lead the Gardai a merry dance

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/man-with-more-than-170-convictions-brought-garda%C3%AD-on-high-speed-chase-1.4262324

Exactly, anybody especially a man is vulnerable to this type of accusation now even if behaviour, proper evidence completely contradicts it. This is not the first case of this kind and wont be the last in this country unfortunately, the DPP, gards have scant regard for the turmoil one has to go through awaiting a trial like this.

And as for going after them, you can forget about it, I dont know anyone with balls big enough to take on the DPP and the gards(detectives) are protected.

Its political and fashionable nowadays, this ****

jimwallace197 · 27-05-2020 9:27pm

Darc19 wrote: »

The problem is Gung ho gardai who make up their minds that someone is guilty and skew all evidence to that.

Far too many inexperienced gardai out there with little to no oversight by properly trained professionals.

Even at the start of this case it was obvious to most people that there was no case to answer.

The woman's story did not add up and witnesses that were in her group did not corroborate her story.

I hope Sil Fox takes a case for malicious prosecution.

Malicious prosecution cases are rarely taken in this country but this needs to change. Too many nutters out there more than happy to ruin a mans life.

28-05-2020 12:30pm

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Malicious prosecution cases are rarely taken in this country but this needs to change. Too many nutters out there more than happy to ruin a mans life.

There's really not "that" many, however, even one is too many. Which is why such a response should be encouraged due to the seriousness, and consequences of such accusations.

Caquas · 31-05-2020 2:43pm

As I predicted, this outrageous prosecution is being ignored by the media. Even the Sunday papers seem to have dodged it.

The only commentary I have seen is Jennifer O'Connell in yesterday's IT. At first, I thought it was going to be an attempt to re-assess #MeToo But see how brazenly she dismisses his suffering:

It’s no surprise he would feel like that, but does he have a point?

And not a word of criticism for the DPP, Claire Loftus.

Then I realised why she was even talking about this case: Joe Biden

Now that there’s an allegation that he assaulted a former staff assistant, Tara Reade, in 1993, he has had to clarify that what he meant was that we should take “the woman’s claim seriously when she steps forward. Then you have to look at the circumstances and facts."

So don't #BelieveHer when she is accusing the Democratic Party putative nominee.

Then she says a 2019 Law Reform Commission (LRC) report

concluded that “false allegations of rape occur, but they are rare”, and that jurors and the public tend to overestimate the prevalence of false allegations.

Don't look at paragraph 1.34 of the report if you value the Law Reform Commission. It makes an assertion on slender evidence which, above all, shows the LRC's indifference to this problem. Imagine if 6% of those convicted of murder in this country were actually innocent? When it comes to sexual crimes, the LRC has forgotten the noble principle that

it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer"

https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/LRC%20122-2019%20Knowledge%20or%20Belief%20Concerning%20Consent%20in%20Rape%20Law.pdf

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/jennifer-o-connell-sil-fox-has-a-point-about-metoo-and-hashtag-justice-1.4265871

jimwallace197 · 01-06-2020 11:58am

Caquas wrote: »

As I predicted, this outrageous prosecution is being ignored by the media. Even the Sunday papers seem to have dodged it.

The only commentary I have seen is Jennifer O'Connell in yesterday's IT. At first, I thought it was going to be an attempt to re-assess #MeToo But see how brazenly she dismisses his suffering:

And not a word of criticism for the DPP, Claire Loftus.

Then I realised why she was even talking about this case: Joe Biden

So don't #BelieveHer when she is accusing the Democratic Party putative nominee.

Then she says a 2019 Law Reform Commission (LRC) report

Don't look at paragraph 1.34 of the report if you value the Law Reform Commission. It makes an assertion on slender evidence which, above all, shows the LRC's indifference to this problem. Imagine if 6% of those convicted of murder in this country were actually innocent? When it comes to sexual crimes, the LRC has forgotten the noble principle that

https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/LRC%20122-2019%20Knowledge%20or%20Belief%20Concerning%20Consent%20in%20Rape%20Law.pdf

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/jennifer-o-connell-sil-fox-has-a-point-about-metoo-and-hashtag-justice-1.4265871

Is it really that surprising its being ignored by the media. This is the media who championed the metoo movement and feminism at the expense of basic male human rights. Making us second class citizens in effect in issues surrounding these type of matters.

The possibility that a woman could use the current circumstances and political appetite to make up a malicious claim doesn't occur to them at all until they are on the receiving end of it or a family member. That's when it really hits home what is going wrong in this society.

Above all else, the DPP and the gards have a duty to protect all citizens of this country, not just does making dubious allegations. The lack of proper investigation, the tunnel vision, the lack of concern for a mans mental health and reputational damage before sending him to court is all there for everyone to see but its being completely ignored and this is nothing short of a disgrace.

This Claire Loftus (DPP) hasnt been in her position that long but she is already making quite a name for herself. Its clear the position she takes on allegations of this type, believe the woman at all costs even though the evidence contradicts it. When you see who has appointed her in the first place, it all starts to make sense. I wonder does the fact she has never been a barrister herself have anything to do with it, the first in the history of the state.

Definitely, more cases of malicious prosecution need to be taken in this country and I hope this poor man does.

LostinBlanch · 01-06-2020 1:13pm

It's not entirely true that the media are totally ignoring this. Brenda Power wrote a very hard hitting article in the Sunday Times on this. It's behind a paywall but I'll quote parts from the article.

After all of the accused men were acquitted following the Belfast rape trial in 2018, a movement began across social media platforms and several news sites under the slogan #IBelieveHer. The premise was that the men’s celebrity had helped them, and the young complainant should be believed even though her accusations ranging from sexual assault to rape — a crime equated with murder in terms of gravity on our statute books — were dismissed by a jury.

The campaign to reverse the presumption of innocence, and treat all accused men as guilty until they could prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, quickly spread beyond the Belfast case. The social justice warriors’ argument was that a sexual crime is so intrusive and stressful to report that no victim would ever get it wrong.

I didn’t see any great resurgence of the #IBelieveHer campaign last week when a middle-aged woman had her accusations of sexual assault against a prominent man thrown out of a Dublin court. Nobody stormed the District Court with placards, nobody waved knickers about, nobody piled on to social media demanding a retrial and lamenting the poor “victim’s” trauma. Even though the case was a high-profile one and the accused man was a public figure, there was a deafening silence from the mob. That’s probably because the complainant posed something of a challenge to the insistence that such women must be believed. Her evidence was found to be totally inconsistent.

.
.
.
It’s at this point that you’ve got to wonder whether the law has, in fact, been changed to the “I Believe Her” model— that the presumption of innocence has been reversed for sexual offences, and nobody’s thought to tell us. Fox was charged with sexual assault, one of the categories of sexual crime which does not afford anonymity to the accused. For 18 months, the 87-year-old, his wife and his family have lived with the appalling stigma of a sexual assault accusation. He has been out of work, his reputation has been trashed, and he has been forced to reveal humiliating details about the collapse of his libido following medical problems 11 years ago.

Until the case came to court last week, though, it seems there was little forensic examination of the extensive CCTV footage of the alleged incident. The woman claimed Fox put his hand on her groin for 30 seconds during the taking of the photograph. He had then “skulked away”, leaving her distressed. But the CCTV showed Fox’s two hands in view the entire time, apart from a three-second period after the picture had been taken. The two had apparently parted on pleasant terms, with the woman touching him in a friendly gesture. There was no evidence of anything untoward, the court held, and no sign the woman was upset. Far from “skulking away”, Fox had ambled back to his friends at a leisurely pace.
.
.
.
Sexual assault “victims” are just as capable of getting it wrong — in this case badly wrong — as any other class of accuser, and given the life-wrecking nature of the charge, their claims have to be treated with the same legal scepticism as any other. This does not appear to have happened in Fox’s case, and he was prosecuted on the word of an untruthful witness. Small wonder the social justice warriors ran for cover this time. #IBelieveHim.

Fair play to Brenda Power for writing this. As for Claire Loftus maybe she'd do well to look at what happened to Alison Saunders across the water. She was effectively sacked as DPP* because of her handling of a number of sexual assault cases that collapsed and should never have gone to trial because of lack of evidence.

*Her contract wasn't renewed, which was easier than sacking her.

Caquas · 01-06-2020 11:31pm

LostinBlanch wrote: »

It's not entirely true that the media are totally ignoring this. Brenda Power wrote a very hard hitting article in the Sunday Times on this. It's behind a paywall but I'll quote parts from the article.

Fair play to Brenda Power. As for Claire Loftus maybe she'd do well to look at what happened to Alison Saunders across the water. She was effectively sacked as DPP* because of her handling of a number of sexual assault cases that collapsed and should never have gone to trial because of lack of evidence.

*Her contract wasn't renewed, which was easier than sacking her.

Credit to Brenda indeed, she has often stood up to the SJWs.

And she points to the key issue: but for the CCTV, Sil Fox would either be spending the rest of his days in jail or he would be convicted by the mob.

Sadly, despite a couple of media comments, this scandal will sink without trace within a week. The Sunday Indo gave him a Quote of the Week but couldn’t find space to tell their readers what happened at his trial. Sil Fox won’t be on the Late Late or Prime Time or even Joe Duffy Funny Fridays. No questions will be asked in the Dail. No one will hold the DPP to account. How could she launch a prosecution which destroyed this man’s life when CCTV plainly exonerated him?

Remember when we were told #MeToo would bring a flood of sexual harassment trials? Nothing happened, except Michael Colgan who was never charged with any crime but his reputation was destroyed by a report from the theatre he had managed for decades. Shakespearean!

iptba · 22-06-2020 6:01pm

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/education/college-consent-crisis-students-forced-or-threatened-into-sex-39303926.html

College consent crisis: students forced or threatened into sex

Almost one in three female students has been subjected to sex involving force or incapacitation due to alcohol or drugs.

It seems to me that advising people to be careful about their alcohol and/or drug usage could be useful if they wish to reduce the chances of unwanted sexual contact.

Findings include:

52pc of female, 49pc of non-binary, and 27pc of male students experienced unwanted touching, completed or attempted penetration.
36pc of females, 32pc of non-binary, and 12pc of males experienced non-consensual completed penetration.
29pc of females, 28pc of non-binary students, and 10pc of males described at least one experience involving tactics of incapacitation or force.
49pc of males, 35pc of females, and 25pc of non-binary students who experienced non-consensual penetration through force or while incapacitated did not disclose the incident to anyone, many because they thought it was not serious enough.
35pc of males, 29pc of females, and 29pc of non-binary students who experienced non-consensual penetration by tactics of incapacitation or force said the perpetrator was a student at their college.
About 75pc of male or female students knew the perpetrator, while a higher proportion (38pc) of non-binary students reported the perpetrator was a stranger.

Edit to add:
I misread this: I thought it said
Almost one in three female students has been subjected to sex involving force due to alcohol or drugs.

22-06-2020 7:19pm

iptba wrote: »

It seems to me that advising people to be careful about their alcohol and/or drug usage could be useful if they wish to reduce the chances of unwanted sexual contact.

Or maybe advising people not to take advantage of others that are under the influence?
That could also be useful

iptba · 22-06-2020 7:30pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Or maybe advising people not to take advantage of others that are under the influence?
That could also be useful

Yes indeed both could be useful. But solely relying on people not to commit crimes is not how we deal with other things in society, yet some people seem to want that approach applied here.

22-06-2020 7:32pm

iptba wrote: »

Yes indeed both could be useful. But solely relying on people not to commit crimes is not how we deal with other things in society, yet some people seem to want that approach applied here.

Blaming the victim seems to be a very popular way if dealing with crimes in this country.
Edit, sexual crimes

iptba · 22-06-2020 7:35pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Blaming the victim seems to be a very popular way if dealing with crimes in this country.

Advice for people to lock their doors, use alarms, etc. and other crime-prevention measures is accepted in other areas of life. But make suggestions about reducing some other types of crime, and you risk being attacked personally, making people nervous about doing it, particularly in non-anonymous situations.

22-06-2020 7:44pm

iptba wrote: »

Advice for people to lock their doors, use alarms, etc. and other crime-prevention measures is accepted in other areas of life. But make suggestions about reducing some other types of crime, and you risk being attacked personally, making people nervous about doing it, particularly in non-anonymous situations.

Bit the fact that society seems to think your are going to be sexually assaulted because you're intoxicated? That means there is a problem with the society.

py2006 · 22-06-2020 7:47pm

If I left my wallet stuffed with notes and credit cards on display lying on a bar counter while I went to the mens toilets for 5 mins, there is a strong possibility that it would attract the wrong sort of person who would take advantage of that situation.

Likewise, I would not walk down a dark alleyway on my own at 3am in the morning passed a group of people on the off chance my safety would be jeopardised.

If I do the above I have to take some responsibility for my actions despite not deserving my wallet stolen or been physically assaulted.

iptba · 22-06-2020 7:51pm

Society thinks you're more likely to be hit as a pedestrian, when you are intoxicated. And you are more likely to end up in A&E with physical injuries from things like falls, if you're intoxicated. Society recognises that being intoxicated is a risk factor for many adverse outcomes.

22-06-2020 7:57pm

py2006 wrote: »

If I do the above I have to take some responsibility for my actions despite not deserving my wallet stolen or been physically assaulted.

You are a victim, you are not responsible. You Do not have to take any responsibility.
I lived in another country where handbags were regularly left on tables in bars & no-one would go near them. If anyone ever tried, everyone else around would stop them.
That's the problem with our society.
The victim is never to blame.

frozenfrozen · 22-06-2020 7:59pm

bubblypop wrote: »

You are a victim, you are not responsible. You Do not have to take any responsibility.
I lived in another country where handbags were regularly left on tables in bars & no-one would go near them. If anyone ever tried, everyone else around would stop them.
That's the problem with our society.
The victim is never to blame.

why would you ever leave that country, sounds great

22-06-2020 8:00pm

iptba wrote: »

Society thinks you're more likely to be hit as a pedestrian, when you are intoxicated. And you are more likely to end up in A&E with physical injuries from things like falls, if you're intoxicated. Society recognises that being intoxicated is a risk factor for many adverse outcomes.

That's completely different. That's an intoxicated person falling out into traffic, that's not a victim.

py2006 · 22-06-2020 8:00pm

bubblypop wrote: »

You are a victim, you are not responsible. You Do not have to take any responsibility.
I lived in another country where handbags were regularly left on tables in bars & no-one would go near them. If anyone ever tried, everyone else around would stop them.
That's the problem with our society.
The victim is never to blame.

I don't mean in the sense as in the person deserves it but in this big bad world we need accountability for our own actions and responsibility for what we do.

In an ideal world there would be no crime but unfortunately we aren't in that world.

22-06-2020 8:01pm

frozenfrozen wrote: »

why would you ever leave that country, sounds great

Merely on secondment from work, no choice

22-06-2020 8:03pm

py2006 wrote: »

accountability for our own actions and responsibility for what we do.
.

Exactly.
The offender is the person responsible.
The victim does not do anything but be a victim.

frozenfrozen · 22-06-2020 8:40pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Merely on secondment from work, no choice

What country? Please say england so I can laugh

iptba · 22-06-2020 8:57pm

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

22-06-2020 9:07pm

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?

22-06-2020 9:09pm

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 · 22-06-2020 9:12pm

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.

22-06-2020 9:19pm

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 · 22-06-2020 9:26pm

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.

22-06-2020 9:29pm

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 · 22-06-2020 9:47pm

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 · 22-06-2020 9:52pm

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.

22-06-2020 9:54pm

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 · 22-06-2020 10:39pm

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 · 22-06-2020 10:40pm

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

22-06-2020 11:14pm

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 · 22-06-2020 11:23pm

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.

22-06-2020 11:33pm

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 · 22-06-2020 11:46pm

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.

23-06-2020 12:06am

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 · 23-06-2020 12:23am

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 · 23-06-2020 12:34am

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.

False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Comments