Roscommon HOH's sentencing

pablomakaveli

Anyone see the discussion of this on Prime Time last night?

They had social services checking up on these children twice a week and they still did next to nothing.:eek:

The women involved came to the attention of social services in 1989 after the birth of her first child. Thats 19 years. I just can't understand why nothing was done.

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

Well earlier you were being very black and white and simply saying all men are capable of .

Reported female ual abuse is rarer yes - that just means there could be lots we don't, and will never, hear about. But you were making the assumption that women are far, far less capable of ual abuse than men simply because they're women. We don't know that, and it's a very old-fashioned, narrow-minded view to have.

Yes I do read, and I spotted numerous points where you said "women do NOT commit incest/rape". Want me to quote them for you?

It's difficult to do so if victims of female ual abuse aren't coming forward. I wouldn't blame people for not doing so - when they're likely to get a chorus of "shur a woman couldn't do that", "shur weren't you lucky to get some" etc.

Based on what? It's likely yes, but how do you prove it? Because you simply believe men, because they're men, are more likely to ually abuse than women? Weak argument, very weak.

Yes. What have we got that contradicts that? Oh yes, women are nice and cute and fluffy and wouldn't force themselves ually on another...

What does that mean?

Yes, technically, all men and all women are capable of anything. All Men are capable of R A P E. That doesn't mean all commit R A P E. Please try and distinguish betwen the two. Read the scenarios I pointed out in my previous posts. You aren't born a R A P I S T, it's not like being born male or
female, or being born straight or gay. There's no definite.

BTW, if I include statutory , all humans are capable. Do you see this.

Now, you are seriously saying that all the studies, reports, acts, convictions, cases and incidents mean nothing and that women are as likely to commit
R A P E as much as men. Are you serious.

You are completely off track and no reports or studies or numbres can ever back up this ludicrous claim. OK, women are capable of R A P E; but to say equally capable is well off the mark. The facts are that historically, men commit R A P E and if you want to get really technical, it comes down to genes and make up and the animal kingdom and testosterone. Men are naturally more aggressive, violent and likeable to commit heinous crimes. All the evidence and science backs this up; and yet you still are trying to disprove it.

Startling, and the funny thing is, you are not alone.

Again, women are not clean fluffy little animals. They are capable of heinous
crimes, but history and nature dictates that they are the gentler .
Not the better, just the gentler on AVERAGE....

dodgyme

walshb wrote: »

Yes, technically, all men and all women are capable of anything. All Men are capable of R A P E. That doesn't mean all commit R A P E. Please try and distinguish betwen the two. Read the scenarios I pointed out in my previous posts. You aren't born a R A P I S T, it's not like being born male or
female, or being born straight or gay. There's no definite.

BTW, if I include statutory , all humans are capable. Do you see this.

Now, you are seriously saying that all the studies, reports, acts, convictions, cases and incidents mean nothing and that women are as likely to commit
R A P E as much as men. Are you serious.

You are completely off track and no reports or studies or numbres can ever back up this ludicrous claim. OK, women are capable of R A P E; but to say equally capable is well off the mark. The facts are that historically, men commit R A P E and if you want to get really technical, it comes down to genes and make up and the animal kingdom and testosterone. Men are naturally more aggressive, violent and likeable to commit heinous crimes. All the evidence and science backs this up; and yet you still are trying to disprove it.

Startling, and the funny thing is, you are not alone.

Again, women are not clean fluffy little animals. They are capable of heinous
crimes, but history and nature dictates that they are the gentler .
Not the better, just the gentler on AVERAGE....

why is everything you say in CA P I T A L S ?

Dudess

The computer he's using censors words like sex, rape and penis - lol.

walshb wrote: »

Yes, technically, all men and all women are capable of anything.

Jesus wept. At least try to stop contradicting yourself. Earlier on, you said all men are capable of rape, one in a billion :rolleyes: women are.

That doesn't mean all commit R A P E. Please try and distinguish betwen the two.

I know. I never said otherwise.

Read the scenarios I pointed out in my previous posts. You aren't born a R A P I S T, it's not like being born male or
female, or being born straight or gay. There's no definite.

Again, nothing I said would contradict that. You were the one dealing in absolutes.

BTW, if I include statutory rape, all humans are capable. Do you see this.

LOL at how you're addressing me as if I've trouble understanding things when you're the one posting generalising, exaggerated, unsupported, contradictory, back-tracking waffle...

Now, you are seriously saying that all the studies, reports, acts, convictions, cases and incidents mean nothing and that women are as likely to commit
R A P E as much as men. Are you serious.

I am saying sexual abuse (including rape) by women is far, far, far less likely to be reported due to prevailing attitudes and beliefs, therefore we cannot get anywhere near an accurate picture. Studies etc are based on reported cases, so plenty are left out.
There is the belief that women aren't capable of being sexually predatory - based on our socialisation, our culture... this is not reality. More than likely, women are less capable of sexual assault than men, but there are too many factors causing distortion to make this a definite.

The facts are that historically, men commit R A P E and if you want to get really technical, it comes down to genes and make up and the animal kingdom and testosterone. Men are naturally more aggressive, violent and likeable to commit heinous crimes. All the evidence and science backs this up; and yet you still are trying to disprove it.

Well finally you're actually backing yourself up instead of posting up-in-the-air nonsense like "I'm sure figures will tell you women commit rape far less" - wow! I bow to your scientific mumbo-jumbo...
I am not trying to disprove it, I am just presenting an alternative to what we have been socially conditioned to believe.

Startling, and the funny thing is, you are not alone.

Your black and white view is far more startling.

Again, women are not clean fluffy little animals. They are capable of heinous
crimes, but history and nature dictates that they are the gentler .
Not the better, just the gentler on AVERAGE....

True. Again though, it went from one in a billion women commit rape to a fairly different story now...

walshb

dodgyme wrote: »

why is everything you say in CA P I T A L S ?

Everything, I would say 1 percent is is in CAPS.

Anyway I explained that this computer is word restricted and deosn't allow
'bad words,' hence my CAPS for R A P E.

Back to this topic. Dudess.

Consider this for a second. Populations in Ireland show more women
in Ireland than men, very close, about 51-49.

Now, of all the recorded CRIMES in Ireland, men are streets ahead in the committing and the convictions of thses crimes. That's all crimes, not just the violent and S E X crimes, which men are even further ahead. This is simple animal kingdom, nature, stronger more D O M I N A N T and violent in nature characteristics. All the evidence and recording and studies do prove this fact, yet you are saying ALL this is maybe inaccurate and women are every bit as
likely to commit crime as men.

Then, why bother have any stats or reports or investigations if it's all
baloney.

I am not saying women are clean, they are not, but the facts are undeniable. men commit more crime, and MORE violent and S E X crime than women. They do, because it's in their nature more so than women. It's an animal thing.

I just can't see how you can question or deny such evidence; the evidence isn't even CLOSE, it is overwhelming. If it was close, I could see where
you are coming from

Oh, but sorry, it's all to do with women reporting/not reporting crime. That's the difference isn't it.
Don't make me laugh. The figures aren't even remotely close.

I am done here. You think men and women are equal in all ways apart from their
genitals, so be it. You are off the head.

Oh, would you also say that women batter men in the home equally as men batter women?

I know women do batter men, but don't tell me it's as common
as men battering women. That's your whole argument and it stinks!

Its not reported as much, but it also doesn't happen as much.

Oh, and who exactly are these women forcibly r a p i n g?

dodgyme

walshb wrote: »

I am not saying women are clean, they are not, but the facts are undeniable. men commit more crime, ... It's an animal thing.?

and women are better at staying at home and doing the housework- its an animal thing?

back on topic:
anyhow the law (not your speculations) should treat people fairly and it clearly doesnt. Your TYPE of opinions may explain why this is the case

walshb

dodgyme wrote: »

and women are better at staying at home and doing the housework- its an animal thing?

back on topic:
anyhow the law (not your speculations) should treat people fairly and it clearly doesnt. Your TYPE of opinions may explain why this is the case

Exactly mate. We do what we do best, crime, and they do what they do best...

BTW, last point, if the figures were 100 percent accurate and you had the real crime figures for crimes, does anyone really believe women would be close or equal. No way.

Ireland's laws are a joke and this woman commited incest and like a man committing incest, should have received the sentence for incest without the
of the perpetrator being a factor.

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

Oh, but sorry, it's all to do with women reporting/not reporting crime. That's the difference isn't it.

Yep. Hugely important factor.

I am done here. You think men and women are equal in all ways apart from their genitals, so be it.

No I don't, at all.

Oh, would you also say that women batter men in the home equally as men batter women?

I know women do batter men, but don't tell me it's as common
as men battering women. That's your whole argument

No it isn't.

Jeez, relax will ya?! Earlier in the thread you were saying women DON'T commit sexual assault, they DON'T rape, they DON'T commit incest... apart from one in a billion. I was just pointing out how you were talking shyte... then you back-tracked, contradicted yourself, made unfounded/unsupported generalisations. Simple as.
Not saying it's highly likely women commit sex crimes equal to the rate of men, but I was just making the point that it's far more than one in a billion (lol), there are many we don't hear about, and your views on gender are way too black and white and narrow-minded, and those views are shaped by how we are socially and culturally conditioned - maybe think outside the box, it would make you look perhaps less ignorant.

Oh, and who exactly are these women forcibly r a p i n g?

Um... people? And it's just "raping", not "forcibly raping". That's like saying "a white polar bear".

dodgyme

walshb wrote: »

Exactly mate. We do what we do best, crime, and they do what they do best...

BTW, last point, if the figures were 100 percent accurate and you had the real crime figures for crimes, does anyone really believe women would be close or equal. No way..

I think people know what you are trying to say but putting it in the context of this debate only serves to increase the argument because people see a link between your point that men may create more crime and the OP topic of women been treated more generously in the court. If you make the point in this context people will naturally see a link.

walshb wrote: »

Ireland's laws are a joke and this woman commited incest and like a man committing incest, should have received the sentence for incest without the
of the perpetrator being a factor.

correct

walshb

dodgyme wrote: »

I think people know what you are trying to say but putting it in the context of this debate only serves to increase the argument because people see a link between your point that men may create more crime and the OP topic of women been treated more generously in the court. If you make the point in this context people will naturally see a link.


correct

Mate, finally someone sees common sense. The debate I was having with dudess was, or at least should have been a different type discussion.

Simple, men commit more crime than women. Animal kingdom traits and rules.

Dudess, even taking into account the reporting/non reporting, it still doesn't come close. I don't mean to argue, just a discussion will suffice.

If all the ACCURATE figures you speak of were obtained, it still would see men
being the major crime factor and major S E X crime factor, it's men that commit the vast majority of ALL, and especially heinous crime. The damn prison figures alone tell a tale.

Compare even those on D E A T H row. A hell of a lot more men on D E A T H row.

I am not trying to start a war between men and women here. It's just facts. Both men and women are capable of heinous crime; men more so and do commit it more so. Why? Well, IMO it's pure nature and the D O M I N A N C E men have and the natural aggression they possess in comparison to women.

And nobody can say that the reason is because there are more men
on this planet, the figures say there are slightly more women.

Again, Dudess, no argument from me, just friendly discussion!

BTW, my initial BOLD and quoted statement about women NOT
committing S E X crime was just for dramatic effect. I know they do commit
S E X crime. I thought you, Dudess, would have copped from the BOLD
and quote marks that I was not being deadly accurate. And I did immediately
after the line, say that in comparison to men, their figures were 1/1000000.
Then I changed it to 1/1000000000; c'mon, tongue in cheek a little!

Dudess

walshb wrote: »

Simple, men commit more crime than women. Animal kingdom traits and rules.

You seem to think I'm disputing that, that I'm insisting the amount of violent and sexual crimes men and women commit are equal. I'm doing no such thing.

I was simply contradicting the, frankly, nonsense you were posting earlier in the thread - that all men are capable of rape (sure, if you only take the penis into consideration, but you also have to take the mind into consideration) and that women don't commit sexual assault (apart from an almost non existent minority).
Now you're posting far more decent comments, but earlier, the stuff you were saying was absolutely ludicrous.

And while I'm not suggesting it's definitely possible an equal number of women commit sex crimes to men, I think it's important to bear in mind much of it will go unreported due to simplistic attitudes towards gender which, frankly, you appear to have.

You do seem to think that men are kinda neanderthal and women are gentle, passive creatures. Before you leap in with "they're not the same apart from genitals" I agree wholeheartedly - we're not. But there are so many variants between men and women - between people - that those black and white assumptions can't be applied if we want to get anywhere...

johnnyskeleton

Dudess wrote: »

And that's a joke of a sentence too - so I don't think this particular example is a case of a light sentence based on gender.

How so? If for sexual assault on an adult the max sentence is 10 years.

Dudess wrote: »

It doesn't help change these attitudes when certain males blather on about how awesome it is when e.g. a female teacher has sex with a teenage underage pupil.

That only applies when the teacher is hot.

Ronan|Raven

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Anyone see the discussion of this on Prime Time last night?

They had social services checking up on these children twice a week and they still did next to nothing.:eek:

The women involved came to the attention of social services in 1989 after the birth of her first child. Thats 19 years. I just can't understand why nothing was done.

Yup, they were involved since 89, everyone knew they were involved. I am sure more people also kept informing social services about the neglect. Having had to listen to that loud mouth wanker that is Gerry Ryan this morning savaging the local community. Short of going into the house and taking the kids themselves from the parents people did as much as they could. Plenty would have liked to take them off them but then you would be done for kidnap of a minor no matter how good your intentions.

walshb

Dudess wrote: »

You seem to think I'm disputing that, that I'm insisting the amount of violent and sexual crimes men and women commit are equal. I'm doing no such thing.

I was simply contradicting the, frankly, nonsense you were posting earlier in the thread - that all men are capable of rape (sure, if you only take the penis into consideration, but you also have to take the mind into consideration) and that women don't commit sexual assault (apart from an almost non existent minority).
Now you're posting far more decent comments, but earlier, the stuff you were saying was absolutely ludicrous.

And while I'm not suggesting it's definitely possible an equal number of women commit sex crimes to men, I think it's important to bear in mind much of it will go unreported due to simplistic attitudes towards gender which, frankly, you appear to have.

You do seem to think that men are kinda neanderthal and women are gentle, passive creatures. Before you leap in with "they're not the same apart from genitals" I agree wholeheartedly - we're not. But there are so many variants between men and women - between people - that those black and white assumptions can't be applied if we want to get anywhere...

All men are capable of rape, capable I said. I didn't say all will commit.
Include statutory rape and it is definite capability

Rape is a very ambiguous area and in the eyes of the law, any man is capable and many men who have
no history of sexual violence have committed rape.


You need to chill and not read into things so deep.

Deny a man sex and that man may become desperate and the same man
who never dreamt of committing a sex crime could do so. Again, don't be so eager to jump in. It's just a discussion.


Most men will not commit rape, but it is a fine line in some cases
Consider alcohol and things men normally would
never do, they can do. Also, the pack mentality is a prime example
of how decent men can act in a pack like way. This has been studied
for years and there are many cases of law abiding decent men
taking part in sex crimes.

Look, just be a little more open minded on the issue. We are all
animals and all have a dark side, that some control and others do not.
I believe you are born good or bad; you are not born a rapist; any man
can commit the crime given any set of circumstances. That's all I said!

K-9

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How so? If for sexual assault on an adult the max sentence is 10 years.



That only applies when the teacher is hot.

YEP, Manys a 16 yr olds fantasy.

Same with some women having a rape or bondage fantasy with a stranger.

Doesn't mean they would want the reality!

walshb

Dudess, have you never heard of opportunistic crimes, where men who have no previous convictions or history commit rape or murder purely on spur and opportunity. This has been well documented and studied for years. It happens, and men are doing it, the same men who can be happly maried, crime free and law abiding.

That's all I am saying; we are susceptible, and NO man can 100 percent say that he would never commit rape or murder. It's not possible to say. So, how is that ludicrous?

To say only certain men can or will commt rape is wrong. All men are capable, some obviously
more so than others. That includes the most gentle and decent men; under the strangest
of circumstances, it occurs.

johnnyskeleton

Seanies32 wrote: »

YEP, Manys a 16 yr olds fantasy.

Same with some women having a rape or bondage fantasy with a stranger.

Doesn't mean they would want the reality!

Of course, it depends on how hot the teacher is and the views of the teenager in question. It's a moveable feast really.

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

Dudess, have you never heard of opportunistic crimes, where men who have no previous convictions or history commit rape or murder purely on spur and opportunity. This has been well documented and studied for yeares. It happens, and men are doing it, the same men who can be happly maried, crime free and law abiding.

That's all I am saying; we are susceptible, and NO man can 100 percent say that he would never commit rape or murder. It's not possible to say. So, how is that ludicrous?

Don't mean to cut across you, but women commit opportunistic crimes too. You could even argue that the level of opportunism is higher among females as it is among males.

walshb

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Don't mean to cut across you, but women commit opportunistic crimes too. You could even argue that the level of opportunism is higher among females as it is among males.

Of course they can. I never said women were angels. I just said that men commit far more crimes than women.

My point about opportunistic rape or murder is that those who commit these
crimes often have no previous convictions, are married and have never had any previous sexual crime history. Any man can do it.

btw, you weren't cutting across me, feel free to engage any time!

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

Of course they can. I never said women were angels. I just said that men commit far more crimes than women.

Certainly more men are caught and prosecuted, but when the majority of all crime goes undetected or unprosecuted (:mad:) it is hard to say exactly what the ratio is between male and female offenders. Certainly violent crime would be more often associated with men. But some types of crime would have a fairly even split (e.g. dangerous driving causing death) and others would have more female than male offenders (e.g. shoplifting).

My point about opportunistic rape or murder is that those who commit these
crimes often have no previous convictions, are married and have never had any previous sexual crime history. Any man can do it.

I would agree with you insofar as it is impossible to tell from a random selection of people who is or is not capable of committing an offence (therefore, of 100 men, any one of them could go on to be a rapist or murderer), but Dudess' point is that if you took 100 men, 99 of them would never commit such an offence for moral/upbringing reasons. So it is unfair to suggest to the 99 that they could be rapists or murderers when it is something that they would simply never do. The fact that you won't know which of them is the one going to commit the offence doesn't mean that all of them have the potential to do it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Dudess wrote: »

Don't know about that - often, bafflingly light sentences have been handed down in this country to men who carry out abuses along these lines.

On the other hand, yes, that is true.

That is down to the descretion of the judge, it is not written in any of the acts. You know?

Courts are a joke, It has always been the case. How the courts see incest being more wrong had it been a man is beyond me. It pisses me off really. Equality my arse.

DarkJager

walshb wrote: »

Of course they can. I never said women were angels. I just said that men commit far more crimes than women.

My point about opportunistic rape or murder is that those who commit these
crimes often have no previous convictions, are married and have never had any previous sexual crime history. Any man can do it.

btw, you weren't cutting across me, feel free to engage any time!

I don't think its fair to say that. I'm sure there are hundreds of cases of women committing crimes against men, but they go unreported for some strange reason (probably down to shame or embarrasment on behalf of the male to report it and to some degree this attitude of "its so rare it doesn't really matter"). Its a plain and simple fact that women can literally get away with murder. Tell me in all honesty that if it had been a man in this case the general reaction in court and from the public wouldn't have been to hang him up by his balls. But oh no, its a woman so she must need psychiatric help and a piss poor 7 year sentence for what is probably one of the most sickening crimes I've ever read about.

I've read opinions on other websites from people who actually believe the sentence was TOO HARSH, because supposedly the mother is the main carer for the children and this dirtbag is just "emotionally fragile" - don't make me ****ing sick. This disgusting specimen of the female species can't even be called a mother for what she did, hell I think she should even be sterilised just for safety. The courts in this country are a joke, an absolute joke that a female who could carry out a catalouge of abuse and neglect like this only gets 7 ****in years, while a male would probably get life. I don't see how anyone could say there is equality between the genders when the scales are so blatantly tipped in one direction.

johnnyskeleton

Saul Mysterious Numskull wrote: »

That is down to the descretion of the judge, it is not written in any of the acts. You know?

Courts are a joke, It has always been the case. How the courts see incest being more wrong had it been a man is beyond me. It pisses me off really. Equality my arse.

If you had read even a tiny bit of the article, you would know that the judge was bound by an old law which carried a maximum sentence of 7 years. So quite the opposite of what you were saying, the courts work well, it's the statutebook that let them down in this instance.

I like the way you presume the courts are a joke, misunderstand what happened in this case, and then use that to prove your presumption.

DarkJager wrote: »

The courts in this country are a joke, an absolute joke that a female who could carry out a catalouge of abuse and neglect like this only gets 7 ****in years, while a male would probably get life. I don't see how anyone could say there is equality between the genders when the scales are so blatantly tipped in one direction.

Again, how can you criticise the courts in this case? The judge herself said that if it was a man she could sentence him to life, but because of the outdated law she was bound by the maximum of 7 years. So why are the courts a joke?

DarkJager

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Again, how can you criticise the courts in this case? The judge herself said that if it was a man she could sentence him to life, but because of the outdated law she was bound by the maximum of 7 years. So why are the courts a joke?

Tell me why it is that she can't be named then? If it were a man his name would be everywhere, he'd be branded a sicko, paedophile etc and would be tarred for life. But this beast gets to go completely unnoticed in 7 years time when she gets out?? Tell me thats not a joke to you.

Madame Razz

DarkJager wrote: »

Tell me why it is that she can't be named then? If it were a man his name would be everywhere, he'd be branded a sicko, paedophile etc and would be tarred for life. But this beast gets to go completely unnoticed in 7 years time when she gets out?? Tell me thats not a joke to you.

I assume her anonymity has something to do with protecting the children as opposed to protecting her.

johnnyskeleton

DarkJager wrote: »

Tell me why it is that she can't be named then? If it were a man his name would be everywhere, he'd be branded a sicko, paedophile etc and would be tarred for life. But this beast gets to go completely unnoticed in 7 years time when she gets out?? Tell me thats not a joke to you.

Because if she was named it would be tantamount to naming the children. The last thing the children here need is for everyone and his uncle to know that they were sexually abused. If it was a man who had abused his children he also wouldn't be named. This law was brought in to protect complainants and to prevent them being discouraged by the publicity of trial. It is definately a good thing.

That's not a joke, that's an efficient justice system. Similar measures are practiced around the world. With respect, you should learn a bit more about the justice system before assuming it's a joke. By holding the views you do, we end up with a perfectly good system that no one has any confidence in. Is that what you want?

DarkJager

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's not a joke, that's an efficient justice system. Similar measures are practiced around the world. With respect, you should learn a bit more about the justice system before assuming it's a joke. By holding the views you do, we end up with a perfectly good system that no one has any confidence in. Is that what you want?

How can you have confidence in a justice system that can't even keep its laws up to date? Letting someone off with 7 years for a crime of this kind is a joke. Plus the fact that calling the Irish justice system a "perfectly good system", is an insult to all of those who have watched the murderers and abusers of their loved ones get off with patethic sentences numerous times.

m83

Madame Razz wrote: »

I assume her anonymity has something to do with protecting the children as opposed to protecting her.

Entirely so. Although everyone in the immediate community will know anyway.

walshb

DarkJager wrote: »

I don't think its fair to say that. I'm sure there are hundreds of cases of women committing crimes against men, but they go unreported for some strange reason (probably down to shame or embarrasment on behalf of the male to report it and to some degree this attitude of "its so rare it doesn't really matter"). Its a plain and simple fact that women can literally get away with murder. Tell me in all honesty that if it had been a man in this case the general reaction in court and from the public wouldn't have been to hang him up by his balls. But oh no, its a woman so she must need psychiatric help and a piss poor 7 year sentence for what is probably one of the most sickening crimes I've ever read about.

I've read opinions on other websites from people who actually believe the sentence was TOO HARSH, because supposedly the mother is the main carer for the children and this dirtbag is just "emotionally fragile" - don't make me ****ing sick. This disgusting specimen of the female species can't even be called a mother for what she did, hell I think she should even be sterilised just for safety. The courts in this country are a joke, an absolute joke that a female who could carry out a catalouge of abuse and neglect like this only gets 7 ****in years, while a male would probably get life. I don't see how anyone could say there is equality between the genders when the scales are so blatantly tipped in one direction.

In the case of murder, the satistics are deadly accurate. Either a man or a woman or both toghether did it. The unsolved murders; now most of them, like most of the solved, are committed by men. Even taking into account inaccuracies, the stats are well higher for men. Gangland murder; anyone reckon women are commtting even 1/10 of these murders?

BTW, I fully agree that out of every 100 men, most will not commit and most are decent; but all are capable and under certain circumstances, all could be potential menaces. I also agree that it's a mind and moral issue and decision
to commit the heinous act; again, all are capable of a lapse and a crime.

It's a fascinating area, but history and nature has proved to us, that men are
more violent, stroger and more heinous.They do commit far more dangerous and violent crimes than women, with or without figures, nature holds true for this.

If you take a look at the figures for violent crime/rape and murder in any
country, you will see that the vast majority are committed by men; and trying to bring the numbers closer by saying inaccuracies exist still sees those numbers ever so far apart. It's an animal instinct; it's not open for change.

Now, other crimes like drink driving and even fraud, will see figures closer; due to the nature of the crime. Hey, even if women wanted to commt violent crimes like men do; their physical make up hinders them. It hinders them insofar as they can really only realistically commit these crimes against women

BTW, A poster mentioned women being higher in the shoplifting stakes. I wouldn't be so sure; I would say it
would be male. Not saying from experience, but when I was growing up, very few if any of the girls
we hung out with stole; most of the guys did. It takes certain balls to do it and women
don't have the balls like men!

Come to think of it, what crime would women be more prone to and more capable
of than men? What crime have women committed more than men?

spongeman

I worked in Thailand for a few years.

Over there crimes against children are punished by the death penalty.

Proper order I'd say.

Dudess

Wow... death row over there must be a very busy place, given the prevalence of child prostitution.

walshb wrote: »

All men are capable of rape, capable I said. I didn't say all will commit.

I know you didn't. And I object to that statement because it's so simplistic - it really does mean all men, simply because they have penises, are capable of rape... not taking each man's psychological make-up into consideration. If I was a man I would be so offended. It makes men seem neanderthal and it's also on a par with the "he's a man, he can't help himself" which insults both men and women, imo.

You need to chill and not read into things so deep.

No I don't, thanks. I'm reading things exactly as I see them.

Deny a man sex and that man may become desperate and the same man who never dreamt of committing a sex crime could do so.

More of it... Or he might have an affair or pay for sex - both more likely than rape, I would imagine.

Look, just be a little more open minded on the issue.

No, I think you should open your mind and consider men on a case by case basis instead of tarring them with one brush.

walshb wrote: »

That's all I am saying; we are susceptible, and NO man can 100 percent say that he would never commit rape or murder. It's not possible to say. So, how is that ludicrous?

I was saying your claim that women aren't capable of sexual assault is ludicrous.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Of course, it depends on how hot the teacher is and the views of the teenager in question. It's a moveable feast really.

It's appalling double standards if it's acceptable for a woman to abuse her position and, for instance, have sex with a male teenage pupil... just because she's hot. As if it definitely wouldn't mess the lad's head up afterwards - because she's hot :rolleyes:.

DarkJager

walshb wrote: »

BTW, A poster mentioned women being higher in the shoplifting stakes. I wouldn't be so sure; I would say it
would be male. Not saying from experience, but when I was growing up, very few if any of the girls
we hung out with stole; most of the guys did. It takes certain balls to do it and women
don't have the balls like men!

Come to think of it, what crime would women be more prone to and more capable
of than men? What crime have women committed more than men?

Its too hard to make that distinction nowadays with this "ladette" culture thats around. I've seen it plenty of times where a loud aggressive woman physically attacks a man and does a bit of damage to him. If he hits back, he's seen to be in the wrong. I'd also put this into the list of reasons for men not reporting such incidents. So you can't really dismiss women committing crimes on physical build alone, they are well capable of violence when they want to be.

Its that kind of thinking that lets them get away with so much. Women don't cause road accidents, they're safe drivers. Women can't beat men up, they're not strong enough. Women don't sexually assault men, its only rape if the male is the perpetrator. The answer to the 3 of those is no...they can. Our outlook on womens rights has changed dramatically over the years, but I feel its also partly responsible for such crimes being "plastered over", because the ingrained views we are told to hold about women from an early age prohibit us from actually imagining they are capable of such acts.

walshb

"I was saying your claim that women aren't capable of sexual assault is ludicrous."

Dudess, you know full well that my claim was used for dramatic effect and to emphasise. That is why BOLD text and quotes were used. Also, I immediately in the next line said the comparisons with men were well off.

"BTW, men rape, women 'don't.' Men sexually abuse, women 'don't.' Now, there are obviously exceptions; but statistically and proportionally, men are far far more likely to commit these types of offences. It's nature, the bad side to it! "

Bold quote above is what I wrote (#54 or#55 I think) from the start. Now, you tell me that is not clear.:rolleyes:

Now, if you want to continue trying to use this lame argument
to back up your views, away you go. It's feeble to say the least.
Had I put a big smiley after the claim, you still would be using the
claim to back yourself up. Lame!

You know exactly what I meant. Now, you on the other hand are saying that all the stats and reports and figures and prison numbers etc etc are all
simply inaccurate and don't paint a good picture. Even allowing for error, the figures for crime and sex crime and violent crime are overwhelming in favor of men

walshb

DarkJager wrote: »

Its too hard to make that distinction nowadays with this "ladette" culture thats around. I've seen it plenty of times where a loud aggressive woman physically attacks a man and does a bit of damage to him. If he hits back, he's seen to be in the wrong. I'd also put this into the list of reasons for men not reporting such incidents. So you can't really dismiss women committing crimes on physical build alone, they are well capable of violence when they want to be.

Its that kind of thinking that lets them get away with so much. Women don't cause road accidents, they're safe drivers. Women can't beat men up, they're not strong enough. Women don't sexually assault men, its only rape if the male is the perpetrator. The answer to the 3 of those is no...they can. Our outlook on womens rights has changed dramatically over the years, but I feel its also partly responsible for such crimes being "plastered over", because the ingrained views we are told to hold about women from an early age prohibit us from actually imagining they are capable of such acts.

Mate, I am not going to disagree. WOMEN are demons and are vicious and capable, no doubt, but in comparison to men; they are still far behind, far behind

spongeman

Why do we feel the need to have referendum to protect children ? Should that not be our priority ?

The chain of command in this case was totally incompetent. Dangerously so. They should be identified immediately , and fired.

Myxomatosis

I used to work as a plumber and we got a job in a house who's occupants were well known in the area for being a very dis functional family. It was in a small council estate.

Anyway, they were getting an extension put on the house (paid for by the government aka tax payer) as the Father and Mother both did not work.

The smell inside the house was disgusting. If we kept in line with health and safety standards, we should have been wearing hazard suits to go into the bathroom, and that's no joke. Half the toilet bowl was broken off, the missing piece replaced by some rags. Every time the toilet was flushed the bathroom floor flooded.

We were putting in new radiators all round the house so in one of the kids rooms we had to move the bed to get in behind it. Underneath the bed we discovered a large, solid, solitary human feces (no singular of feces, lets just call it ****).

There was a social worker assigned to the family, which brought the Mother and kids (5) off shopping every Saturday and visited the home nearly every day that I was there. The social worker would come and clean the kids and house as best she could in the hour she had, while the fat mother sat on a wall outside and smoked.

The father and son ****ed off everyday with a traveler and came home with old copper pipes, old hot tanks, old copper wiring, and ****ed it on the lawn in front of the house.

They guy I was working with who lives in the area was telling me that there was rumors that the Father was / is having sex with the 17 year old daughter.

I think the criteria for taking children away from **** parents should be far more strict. E.g. if you require a social worker to monitor and help you raise the kids, then we should forget about the social worker altogether and take the kids there and then.

g5hn710m4xpdwy

CantGetNoSleep wrote: »

I'll be back in a while with the name of a case where a woman was babysitting a child and literally stuffed his c*ck up herself arse but she can't be done for rape

Is it really, really bad when I read that at first before rereading it?:o

nacho libre

it just goes to show how destructive that mindset, in the older generation, of children should be seen and not heard can be.

One other point, according to recent stats in the uk on sexual abuse of children by women would tend to undermine the argument posited by some in this thread that its extremely rare among women(according to a child protection agency in the U.K. Women commit 25% of all child sexual abuse)

walshb

nacho libre wrote: »

it just goes to show how destructive that mindset, in the older generation, of children should be seen and not heard can be.

One other point, according to recent stats in the uk on sexual abuse of children by women would tend to undermine the argument posited by some in this thread that its extremely rare among women(according to a child protection agency in the U.K. Women commit 25% of all child sexual abuse)

I'd like to see that report or study. Sounds very high. Is this meaning of all the cases or convictions, 25/100 are women, or is it a guess that 25/100 cases are women

johnnyskeleton

DarkJager wrote: »

How can you have confidence in a justice system that can't even keep its laws up to date?

If you don't understand the most basic concept of democracy - that the executive, legislature and judiciary are separate, then feel free to have no confidence in the system. Feel fee also to support dictatorships, tyranny, whatever system floats your boat but doesn't have any transparency, accountability or credibility. It's not the courts, it's the legislature, i.e. the people that you voted in (not you personally, but, well, I'm not going to give you the credit of being any smarter than a FF supporter) that failed in this instance.

DarkJager wrote: »

Letting someone off with 7 years for a crime of this kind is a joke. Plus the fact that calling the Irish justice system a "perfectly good system", is an insult to all of those who have watched the murderers and abusers of their loved ones get off with patethic sentences numerous times.

I see, so the victims of crime are nothing but a football that you kick around whenever you're wrong but can't admit it. Do you know anything about the justice system? Can you honestly say that you know how things could be run better? It's great isn't it, saying I'm so sensitive I know how victims of crime feel, but have you met any? Do you not understand the futility of human justice? Walk a mile in their shoes, then come back and be so angry, so ignorant and so immovable in your views.

johnnyskeleton

Dudess wrote: »

It's appalling double standards if it's acceptable for a woman to abuse her position and, for instance, have sex with a male teenage pupil... just because she's hot. As if it definitely wouldn't mess the lad's head up afterwards - because she's hot :rolleyes:.

The key words being abuse her position. Neither I nor you said anything about a teacher abusing her position over a student. What was being discussed was when a female teacher has sex with a male student. It's one thing for them to have consensual sex, it's another thing entirely where there is an element of abusing her position.

But when it comes down to it, why are you presuming that it will mess his head up? Is it not fair to say that it is not something that can be commented on definitively? In which case, would you not accept that the majority of young men would have no problem with such a scenario, if the teacher was hot?

As you said earlier:

Dudess wrote:

I think you should open your mind and consider men on a case by case basis instead of tarring them with one brush.

johnnyskeleton

walshb wrote: »

Mate, I am not going to disagree. WOMEN are demons and are vicious and capable,

Ah, they're not so bad.

johnnyskeleton

Myxomatosis wrote: »

I used to work as a plumber and we got a job in a house who's occupants were well known in the area for being a very dis functional family. It was in a small council estate.

Anyway, they were getting an extension put on the house (paid for by the government aka tax payer) as the Father and Mother both did not work.

The smell inside the house was disgusting. If we kept in line with health and safety standards, we should have been wearing hazard suits to go into the bathroom, and that's no joke. Half the toilet bowl was broken off, the missing piece replaced by some rags. Every time the toilet was flushed the bathroom floor flooded.

We were putting in new radiators all round the house so in one of the kids rooms we had to move the bed to get in behind it. Underneath the bed we discovered a large, solid, solitary human feces (no singular of feces, lets just call it ****).

There was a social worker assigned to the family, which brought the Mother and kids (5) off shopping every Saturday and visited the home nearly every day that I was there. The social worker would come and clean the kids and house as best she could in the hour she had, while the fat mother sat on a wall outside and smoked.

The father and son ****ed off everyday with a traveler and came home with old copper pipes, old hot tanks, old copper wiring, and ****ed it on the lawn in front of the house.

They guy I was working with who lives in the area was telling me that there was rumors that the Father was / is having sex with the 17 year old daughter.

I think the criteria for taking children away from **** parents should be far more strict. E.g. if you require a social worker to monitor and help you raise the kids, then we should forget about the social worker altogether and take the kids there and then.

There are two separate issues here - first the general conditions the children are living in & second the possible abuse. As regards the second issue if the allegations are substantiated then the child will be removed from the family home. As regards the first issue, it's more complicated. You have to strike a balance between whether the children actually want to stay there & what the alternatives are. These are the main considerations when determining what is in the best welfare of the child.

Saibh

But from what I gathered in the newspaper (you can correct me if I am wrong) the children had no choice.

What child would go against their parent? None, especially when they felt (I would imagine in this case) they had no one else to turn to.

They knew no different and had no one to advise them on the alternatives as such.

K-9

Saibh wrote: »

But from what I gathered in the newspaper (you can correct me if I am wrong) the children had no choice.

What child would go against their parent? None, especially when they felt (I would imagine in this case) they had no one else to turn to.

They knew no different and had no one to advise them on the alternatives as such.

Indeed and children can't really judge what is best for them, especially the ages of some of the children in this case.

johnnyskeleton

Saibh wrote: »

But from what I gathered in the newspaper (you can correct me if I am wrong) the children had no choice.

What child would go against their parent? None, especially when they felt (I would imagine in this case) they had no one else to turn to.

They knew no different and had no one to advise them on the alternatives as such.

That's why the social workers can make an application to the courts, and the children can have a guardian ad litem appointed to represent their interests. The judge doesn't have to be swayed by their views; it's a question of balancing the views of the children with the conditions they are in. I understand that this didn't happen in this case. I should also say that, while I don't have much sympathy for social workers, I don't think they themselves can be blamed in cases like this. We have no way of knowing how many similar cases were averted by social workers, and their job is very difficult (and rightly so). They are also underfunded. Any efforts to make it easier for children to be put in state care will not prevent situations like this happening again, and will also case a number of injustices.

If you re-read my post you'll see that i said that in cases of abuse the children will be removed from the parents & in the case of general neglect (not amounting to abuse) it is a balancing act between the wishes of the children and the circumstances.

Here's a good article from today's times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0124/1232474679446.html

JuliusCaesar

Seanies32 wrote: »

YEP, Female abuse on children is far more common than people think, but social workers and Judges tend to give them more chances.

Anybody heard of this Bean Ni Chroibin and her right wing Catholic organisation?

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/who-was-the-rightwing-catholic-group-who-allowed-incest-to-happen-1610124.html

She's been around a long time. She was involved in SPUC and Family Solidarity if my memory serves.

An article in the Irish Times said that an aunt of the kids used to give them money for sweets when they visited, but they would spend the money on tins of salmon to share with the other kids instead.

Saibh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If you re-read my post you'll see that i said that in cases of abuse the children will be removed from the parents & in the case of general neglect (not amounting to abuse) it is a balancing act between the wishes of the children and the circumstances.

I wasn't replying in general about other cases - I was commenting on this particular case.

johnnyskeleton

Saibh wrote: »

I wasn't replying in general about other cases - I was commenting on this particular case.

Well then what you said before was irrelevant because in clear cases of abuse a judge can remove a child from the home notwithstanding that the child expresses a desire to remain. The fact that nothing was done in this case is down to the unfortunate reality of underfunded social services who can't get it right all the time.

Saibh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well then what you said before was irrelevant because in clear cases of abuse a judge can remove a child from the home notwithstanding that the child expresses a desire to remain. The fact that nothing was done in this case is down to the unfortunate reality of underfunded social services who can't get it right all the time.

What did I say that was irrelevant to this case?