Woman accuses three men of rape after drunken romp

py2006

say_who_now? wrote: »

I don't think for a second that these guys lives were "ruined" by this, quite likely I would wager that they weren't as put out as the daily fail would have you believe. They showed no conscience in all three of them taking advantage of a drunk girl. I think this girl has been punished enough for her mistake, a mistake which she went to incredible lengths to cover up, but a mistake nonetheless. I think she has been punished sufficiently already, just unfortunate for her that she now has a permanent criminal conviction. Every action has its consequences is all, and for most people that's just plain common sense!

I had to read this twice to believe it. Shocking stuff.

Galwayguy35

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I suppose what I would personally take from that is that although many people don't deny that rape is a heinous crime and the rapists should be should be locked up, many still believe the victim is at fault to a certain degree if she is drunk, on drugs, dressed provocatively or overly-flirty. The fact that it is a sizable percentage is terrifying. The victim is never ever at fault. Never. The fact that anyone would think she is is frightening.

Let's not forget that men can be the victim of rape as well.

py2006

When one reads between the lines of certain posters in this thread you can see that (although they won't say it) they believe this woman's actions wasn't all that bad, she eventually confessed, the men were found innocent and that the men will get over it. Everyone lives happily ever after.

Extremely worrying to see this and its an attitude that should be of grave concern to any right thinking man.

Friel

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Both were equally bad I think.

There's no doubt that it's an evil thing to do, but I just can't stand when someone shows no sign of remorse. An apology and explanation go a long way.

Monty Burnz

say_who_now? wrote: »

You have to remember though that this is an article in the daily fail, well used to spinning a story to whip up a shìtstorm, so we only have that journalist's word to say this girl showed no remorse for her actions, the same way as they are often prone to throwing in little tidbits like one of these "upstanding fellows" had ambitions to go feed starving kids in america. The inclusion of that little tidbit is the only part of reading this sorry article where I laughed as it was so ridiculous!

I don't think for a second that these guys lives were "ruined" by this, quite likely I would wager that they weren't as put out as the daily fail would have you believe. They showed no conscience in all three of them taking advantage of a drunk girl. I think this girl has been punished enough for her mistake, a mistake which she went to incredible lengths to cover up, but a mistake nonetheless. I think she has been punished sufficiently already, just unfortunate for her that she now has a permanent criminal conviction. Every action has its consequences is all, and for most people that's just plain common sense!

I can only assume this is a rather long-winded and unfunny attempt at humour.

Eve_Dublin

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Let's not forget that men can be the victim of rape as well.

You're completely right.

MrGeneric

py2006 wrote: »

When one reads between the lines of certain posters in this thread you can see that (although they won't say it) they believe this woman's actions wasn't all that bad, she eventually confessed, the men were found innocent and that the men will get over it.

Extremely worrying to see this and its an attitude that should be of grave concern to any right thinking man.

There's reading between the lines to pick up on a hidden meaning that a poster left intentionally, and there's reading what you want to read but hasn't been written.

they believe this woman's actions wasn't all that bad, she eventually confessed, the men were found innocent and that the men will get over it.

Nobody argued that her actions weren't all that bad. People just had different opinions on how severe the punishment should be. Mainly, people were opposed to the idea that the punishment for a false accusation should be the same as the punishment for what was accused multiplied by the number of accused parties.

She did eventually confess.

The men were found innocent.

Whether the men will get over it is a matter of opinion.

What is this attitude we should be so gravely concerned about?

hatrickpatrick

Squ wrote: »

Good 'aul AH..

Sentence for rape=sentence for lying..

It's more than a sentence for lying. It's a sentence for a deliberate and total destruction of an innocent man's reputation and character in the eyes of the general public.

Jayo2011

bijapos wrote: »

Indeed. Whatever about her rape story i find it interesting that a girl who gets 3 blokes into bed with her is a "slapper", whereas if a guy gets 3 girls into bed with him he's the country's biggest stud.:rolleyes:

Fair point - but I have yet to hear of any guy accusing 3 girls of raping him no matter what kind of slapper he is.

She's not a slapper for having sex with 3 lads. She's an absolute c*nt for accusing them in the wrong. She should be given the same sentence as they would if they'd have been convicted and forced to pay compensation. She should also be added to the sex offenders list.

What kind of sick individual is she?

smurgen

Monty Burnz wrote: »

say_who_now? wrote: »

You have to remember though that this is an article in the daily fail, well used to spinning a story to whip up a shìtstorm, so we only have that journalist's word to say this girl showed no remorse for her actions, the same way as they are often prone to throwing in little tidbits like one of these "upstanding fellows" had ambitions to go feed starving kids in america. The inclusion of that little tidbit is the only part of reading this sorry article where I laughed as it was so ridiculous!

I don't think for a second that these guys lives were "ruined" by this, quite likely I would wager that they weren't as put out as the daily fail would have you believe. They showed no conscience in all three of them taking advantage of a drunk girl. I think this girl has been punished enough for her mistake, a mistake which she went to incredible lengths to cover up, but a mistake nonetheless. I think she has been punished sufficiently already, just unfortunate for her that she now has a permanent criminal conviction. Every action has its consequences is all, and for most people that's just plain common sense!

I can only assume this is a rather long-winded and unfunny attempt at humour.

Either this guy is trolling of he has a very twisted view on male/female relationships.first he states he was accused of rape in his home town and beaten up as a result and felt 0 anger towards the girl that did it to him,now he's saying that another girl who admitted to police she falsely claimed rape doesn't deserve a criminal conviction.Sounds like a self hating male

hatrickpatrick

Quorum wrote: »

Actually, the definition of rape in Ireland is much less broad than a lot of other developed countries.

Yet it still criminalizes men only for two acts in which both parties are equally responsible, the first being consensual underage sex between TWO minors, and the second being consensual sex between TWO drunk people.

Thanks to archaic notions about sex, Irish law regards both scenarios as being entirely the man's fault. Until this is reformed, unfortunately, I will most likely continue to have strong feelings about this subject.

And yes, if you must know, it is personal. A good friend of mine was almost destroyed when his girlfriend's parents found out about them, they were both 15 or 16 at the time, same age (in fact if I remember rightly she was a few months older).

According to Irish law, she's an innocent little angel while he's a violent criminal.

Things eventually calmed down around it, but on discovering the possibility that such a law exists, it forever tarnished the word "rape" in my mind. If the government wants it to be taken more seriously, the definition of it needs to be reformed, firstly to remove the presumption that the man is always the one who did wrong and not vice versa, and secondly to remove the assumption that an underage boy is a monster while an underage girl is not.

And I honestly don't feel that's even remotely unreasonable.

Put it this way, if I get drunk enough that I can get myself behind the wheel of a car and start the engine, but too drunk to steer it properly and I hit someone, I am responsible for my actions. Nobody says "You were too drunk to knowingly choose to do what you did, therefore no penalty".

The same applies to men in cases of regretted drunken sex, but not to women.

One final thought: Rape should be defined as having intercourse with somebody else without their consent. Not "penetration". "penetration" automatically excludes cases in which a man doesn't consent to sex with a woman, which is fundamentally discriminatory.

sunflower27

Don't reckon those three lads will have sex with a woman one after each other again in a hurry.

Grose.

say_who_now?

haulagebasher wrote: »

I think you swing out there on that one. Being young does not absolve one from breaking the law. In this case the girl defamed you. And very seriously at that to the point where your life was put in danger.
If I were in your position, assuming that the case is within the statute of limitations, I would have been taking her apology as an admission of guilt and have her summoned to court for defamation and have her made an example of.

Sweet Christ above! I'd want to be some bitter bástard to want to seek to destroy someones life like that for something they did as a very naive 15 year old. She was 15 at the time. She is now 30 and we've since become good friends, and she has done well for herself and gone to college and is now making a good life for herself. She fell in with a bad crowd when she was younger and she done well for herself to break away from it. I'm not going to hold something against a girl for something she did when she was only 15 years old, 15 years ago! If I was disappointed by anyone's behaviour, it was that of the people I had thought of as my friends at the time who were so quick to abandon me and spread gossip.

haulagebasher wrote: »

It is this casual "ah shure it'll be grant" attitude that you took that encourages people like this to act without thinking as they anticipate no negative consequences.

No, it was because she was a naive 15 year old girl that she never anticipated the conseques nor foresaw how other people would react.

haulagebasher wrote: »

In your case it was very serious indeed - someone attacked you over the rumours and you could potentially have been maimed for life or even potentially killed. In addition you could argue that thereafter, you were in fear of your life due to rumour and assaults and had to flee you home town as a result of her false accusations. Your reputation was damaged, prospect for employment in your home area were damaged and you were separated from family etc etc. That type of thing could all be argued..

It could all be argued, but none of it would be true or factual, that'd be something like the daily mail would write! My employment prospects were never damaged, I was not separated from my family, nor did I flee my home town, and not for a minute was I ever in fear of my life. I moved from the town to further my education and finish my degree.

haulagebasher wrote: »

If you take her to court, this case could work out very favourably for you.
If all cases of false rape acccusation where associated defamation and rumour spreading takes place were vigorously persued in the courts, it might make people think twice about "crying rape" and future cases of defamation and false accusation would be much reduced.
By refraining from prosecuting for defamation you send out the message that this type of defamation is acceptable and carried little consequence.

I wont be taking her to courrt, and the thought never once crossed my mind. This was a rumor, gossip, and in my mind- the people who spread it were worse than the person who started it.

haulagebasher wrote: »

You owe her nothing and owe her no favours. She was 110% in the wrong and I would ne very confident of a court finding in your favour. As they say, a good start is half the battle - she has already, without and promting, come to you of her own free will and not only apologised but confessed to having rumoured/defamed you. Even an apology on its own would routinely be considered as admission of guilt by a court. A very strong case there.

I've already stated that if it hadn't been for her, I would've never found out who my real friends were. In my view she had nothing to apologise for, people will say things about you all the time, but when those that know you turn their back on you, that peeved me off a lot more than anything that was ever said about me.

haulagebasher wrote: »

Now before someone criticises me for advocating legal action and suing in this case and being vehemently against it in the anecdote re false rape in my home town I must say they are totally different.
-in my home town anecdote, the girls were suing under fraudulent accusations as [i believe] no crimes or rape had been committeed
- in this posters anecdote a crime very much so has been committed, that crime being defamation so this case would be entirely legitimate.

In addition to defamation there is also the assault which occured at the hands of her family. If there were any witnesses to this you could have a case there too. Did you report it to the guards at the time?

If I went to court every time someone spread a rumor about me, I'd never get any work done, let alone just being able to get on with my life. I didn't report it to the guards at the time because I chose just to get on with my life.

haulagebasher wrote: »

Point 2. I also find the comments re blaming the 3 lads for having sex with the drunken girl and placing some blame on them a bit iffy.
They may have acted foolishly and irresponsibly, yes, probably but at the end of the day it is not illegal be to immoral or foolish.
She gave consent to it at the time. FACT. At the time in question she was quite happy to spread for all three of them. You cannot retrospectively withdraw consent for a sex act after it has taken place. If she regretted it next morning that's her problem and she has to deal with it. Not go back and decide "well looking back on it I shouldn't have consented to it, and as such I can retropectively call it rape. That is quite preposterous.

This girl was in no condition to give consent if she was not in control of her full faculties. These guys took advantage of that fact. There's foolish and irresponsible, and then there's just behaving like a pack of lecherous insidious pricks!

Gauss

say_who_now? wrote: »

haulagebasher wrote: »

I think you swing out there on that one. Being young does not absolve one from breaking the law. In this case the girl defamed you. And very seriously at that to the point where your life was put in danger.
If I were in your position, assuming that the case is within the statute of limitations, I would have been taking her apology as an admission of guilt and have her summoned to court for defamation and have her made an example of.

Sweet Christ above! I'd want to be some bitter bástard to want to seek to destroy someones life like that for something they did as a very naive 15 year old. She was 15 at the time. She is now 30 and we've since become good friends, and she has done well for herself and gone to college and is now making a good life for herself. She fell in with a bad crowd when she was younger and she done well for herself to break away from it. I'm not going to hold something against a girl for something she did when she was only 15 years old, 15 years ago! If I was disappointed by anyone's behaviour, it was that of the people I had thought of as my friends at the time who were so quick to abandon me and spread gossip.

haulagebasher wrote: »

It is this casual "ah shure it'll be grant" attitude that you took that encourages people like this to act without thinking as they anticipate no negative consequences.

No, it was because she was a naive 15 year old girl that she never anticipated the conseques nor foresaw how other people would react.

haulagebasher wrote: »

In your case it was very serious indeed - someone attacked you over the rumours and you could potentially have been maimed for life or even potentially killed. In addition you could argue that thereafter, you were in fear of your life due to rumour and assaults and had to flee you home town as a result of her false accusations. Your reputation was damaged, prospect for employment in your home area were damaged and you were separated from family etc etc. That type of thing could all be argued..

It could all be argued, but none of it would be true or factual, that'd be something like the daily mail would write! My employment prospects were never damaged, I was not separated from my family, nor did I flee my home town, and not for a minute was I ever in fear of my life. I moved from the town to further my education and finish my degree.

haulagebasher wrote: »

If you take her to court, this case could work out very favourably for you.
If all cases of false rape acccusation where associated defamation and rumour spreading takes place were vigorously persued in the courts, it might make people think twice about "crying rape" and future cases of defamation and false accusation would be much reduced.
By refraining from prosecuting for defamation you send out the message that this type of defamation is acceptable and carried little consequence.

I wont be taking her to courrt, and the thought never once crossed my mind. This was a rumor, gossip, and in my mind- the people who spread it were worse than the person who started it.

haulagebasher wrote: »

You owe her nothing and owe her no favours. She was 110% in the wrong and I would ne very confident of a court finding in your favour. As they say, a good start is half the battle - she has already, without and promting, come to you of her own free will and not only apologised but confessed to having rumoured/defamed you. Even an apology on its own would routinely be considered as admission of guilt by a court. A very strong case there.

I've already stated that if it hadn't been for her, I would've never found out who my real friends were. In my view she had nothing to apologise for, people will say things about you all the time, but when those that know you turn their back on you, that peeved me off a lot more than anything that was ever said about me.

haulagebasher wrote: »

Now before someone criticises me for advocating legal action and suing in this case and being vehemently against it in the anecdote re false rape in my home town I must say they are totally different.
-in my home town anecdote, the girls were suing under fraudulent accusations as [i believe] no crimes or rape had been committeed
- in this posters anecdote a crime very much so has been committed, that crime being defamation so this case would be entirely legitimate.

In addition to defamation there is also the assault which occured at the hands of her family. If there were any witnesses to this you could have a case there too. Did you report it to the guards at the time?

If I went to court every time someone spread a rumor about me, I'd never get any work done, let alone just being able to get on with my life. I didn't report it to the guards at the time because I chose just to get on with my life.

haulagebasher wrote: »

Point 2. I also find the comments re blaming the 3 lads for having sex with the drunken girl and placing some blame on them a bit iffy.
They may have acted foolishly and irresponsibly, yes, probably but at the end of the day it is not illegal be to immoral or foolish.
She gave consent to it at the time. FACT. At the time in question she was quite happy to spread for all three of them. You cannot retrospectively withdraw consent for a sex act after it has taken place. If she regretted it next morning that's her problem and she has to deal with it. Not go back and decide "well looking back on it I shouldn't have consented to it, and as such I can retropectively call it rape. That is quite preposterous.

This girl was in no condition to give consent if she was not in control of her full faculties. These guys took advantage of that fact. There's foolish and irresponsible, and then there's just behaving like a pack of lecherous insidious pricks!

Were the three lads in a condition to consent? Maybe they were drinking too.

Would you forgive a 15 year old rapist when they turned 30 by the way. Maybe he just got in with the wrong crowd and didn't know what he was doing.

say_who_now?

TheBoss! wrote: »

You are guilty of something which is quite common: letting your indignation at the Daily Mail cloud your ability to read an article and just take the facts from it, filtering out any opinions expressed by the paper or journalist. Something which one has to do reading many publications, not just those on the right.

My comments were based on quotes from the investigating officers:

Because to suit their own needs the daily mail would never misquote anybody or attribute quotations to persons that they never made, would they? Riiiiight. Quality broadsheet alright! :rolleyes:

squod

Has anyone said ''pics or GTFO'' yet?

py2006

MrGeneric wrote: »

There's reading between the lines to pick up on a hidden meaning that a poster left intentionally, and there's reading what you want to read but hasn't been written.

When you are around a little bit longer you will see a bigger picture.

Quorum

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yet it still criminalizes men only for two acts in which both parties are equally responsible, the first being consensual underage sex between TWO minors, and the second being consensual sex between TWO drunk people.

Thanks to archaic notions about sex, Irish law regards both scenarios as being entirely the man's fault. Until this is reformed, unfortunately, I will most likely continue to have strong feelings about this subject.

And yes, if you must know, it is personal. A good friend of mine was almost destroyed when his girlfriend's parents found out about them, they were both 15 or 16 at the time, same age (in fact if I remember rightly she was a few months older).

According to Irish law, she's an innocent little angel while he's a violent criminal.

Things eventually calmed down around it, but on discovering the possibility that such a law exists, it forever tarnished the word "rape" in my mind. If the government wants it to be taken more seriously, the definition of it needs to be reformed, firstly to remove the presumption that the man is always the one who did wrong and not vice versa, and secondly to remove the assumption that an underage boy is a monster while an underage girl is not.

And I honestly don't feel that's even remotely unreasonable.

Put it this way, if I get drunk enough that I can get myself behind the wheel of a car and start the engine, but too drunk to steer it properly and I hit someone, I am responsible for my actions. Nobody says "You were too drunk to knowingly choose to do what you did, therefore no penalty".

The same applies to men in cases of regretted drunken sex, but not to women.

One final thought: Rape should be defined as having intercourse with somebody else without their consent. Not "penetration". "penetration" automatically excludes cases in which a man doesn't consent to sex with a woman, which is fundamentally discriminatory.

I agree that the Romeo and Juliet law is CRAZY. By less broad, I meant that rape is only classified as violation with a penis in Ireland whereas in other countries, that is extended to penetration with objects also. That's what I was referring to. I agree that "rape" should be extended to violation with objects in this country, and yes, that could be a good thing for men also.

I would say though, that if a man doesn't consent to sex, being USUALLY physically stronger means he should be able to prevent it. So it's generally not as much of an issue.

Katgurl

haulagebasher wrote: »

...
Now before someone criticises me for advocating legal action and suing in this case and being vehemently against it in the anecdote re false rape in my home town I must say they are totally different.
-in my home town anecdote, the girls were suing under fraudulent accusations as [i believe] no crimes or rape had been committeed
- in this posters anecdote a crime very much so has been committed, that crime being defamation so this case would be entirely legitimate.

In addition to defamation there is also the assault which occured at the hands of her family. If there were any witnesses to this you could have a case there too. Did you report it to the guards at the time?

Point 2. I also find the comments re blaming the 3 lads for having sex with the drunken girl and placing some blame on them a bit iffy.
They may have acted foolishly and irresponsibly, yes, probably but at the end of the day it is not illegal be to immoral or foolish.
She gave consent to it at the time. FACT. At the time in question she was quite happy to spread for all three of them. You cannot retrospectively withdraw consent for a sex act after it has taken place. If she regretted it next morning that's her problem and she has to deal with it. Not go back and decide "well looking back on it I shouldn't have consented to it, and as such I can retropectively call it rape. That is quite preposterous.

You have too many posts to quote them all but are you for real? One man isn't capable of rape because he plays golf or Gaelic football or whatever? And the girls were after compensation - what compensation? Congratulations you've been raped, please pass Go and collect your two million quid. Did you even go to the court hearing? You haven't mentioned anything about inconsistent testimonies just made your own character assessments based on women being slappers and therefore not to be trusted and men being great sporting heroes.

Glad to hear you don't condone rape but unless you have had direct experience it escapes me how you can belitle the brevity of the situation.

Im shocked by the op btw but how you can compare it to your ill-informed sexist views on what took place in your hometown is beyond me.

say_who_now?

smurgen wrote: »

Either this guy is trolling of he has a very twisted view on male/female relationships.first he states he was accused of rape in his home town and beaten up as a result and felt 0 anger towards the girl that did it to him,now he's saying that another girl who admitted to police she falsely claimed rape doesn't deserve a criminal conviction.Sounds like a self hating male

I can assure you at least I am not trolling, and I have no self esteem issues either. I consider myself quite a rational and reasonable individual, not quick to anger or emotional outrage. I never once said that the girl in the OP didnt deserve her conviction for perverting the course of justice. I said it was unfortunate for her, and it is, as she has now to live with that which will restrict her future prospects in all areas of her life as it's now on a permanent record. I had no wish to do this to a naive young girl tbh. There are some that may disagree with how I handled the situation, but that was 15 years ago now and has long been dealt with by all parties concerned, or at least by those parties it mattered to anyway!

Tombi!

Sykk wrote: »

While it's terrible that has happened to you. Your view doesn't cover everyone in your boat the same way as being Irish doesn't mean I love drinking Guinness.

I know a couple of girls who were unfortunate enough to experience rape, and one in particular now has mental problems, all of which are tied into her experiences.

On topic, I'm glad justice was served. Being accused when innocent and being a victim then branded "the town bike" anyway are both brutal in their own ways.

My point is that while it's possible (and there are many avenues of support) for rape victims to "get over it" and live a normal life, there isn't anything like that for men that are falsely accused.

While there will always be some people that will say "ah she deserved it in that mini skirt" you'll very rarely hear so many defending someone that is innocent but accused of rape.

say_who_now?

Gauss wrote: »

Were the three lads in a condition to consent? Maybe they were drinking too.

Because of the nature of the sexual act performed in this particular case, these individuals were not required to give consent. They penetrated the girl in her drunken state, she did not penetrate them, at least that's the way I understand it anyway!

Gauss wrote: »

Would you forgive a 15 year old rapist when they turned 30 by the way. Maybe he just got in with the wrong crowd and didn't know what he was doing.

No I wouldn't, the two situations are completely different, but be as facetious as you like why dont you. You can get in with the wrong crowd, but that crowd cannot make you force your penis inside another man nor woman.

smurgen

say_who_now? wrote: »

smurgen wrote: »

Either this guy is trolling of he has a very twisted view on male/female relationships.first he states he was accused of rape in his home town and beaten up as a result and felt 0 anger towards the girl that did it to him,now he's saying that another girl who admitted to police she falsely claimed rape doesn't deserve a criminal conviction.Sounds like a self hating male

I can assure you at least I am not trolling, and I have no self esteem issues either. I consider myself quite a rational and reasonable individual, not quick to anger or emotional outrage. I never once said that the girl in the OP didnt deserve her conviction for perverting the course of justice. I said it was unfortunate for her, and it is, as she has now to live with that which will restrict her future prospects in all areas of her life as it's now on a permanent record. I had no wish to do this to a naive young girl tbh. There are some that may disagree with how I handled the situation, but that was 15 years ago now and has long been dealt with by all parties concerned, or at least by those parties it mattered to anyway!

The only one who was naïve in the situation you found yourself in was you.if that 15 year old girl was smart enough to know the damage an accusation of rape would do then she wasn't naïve.you are deliberatly playing down the seriousness of a false rape claim.in your situation Not going to the cops and letting chinese whispers go around town probable added fuel to the fire.Just hoping the story would go away would make you look like More of a rapist.i'd go straight to the cops and tackle the accusation head on.

Also why do you keep making sly insinuations against the 3 lads involved?

dj jarvis

humbert wrote: »

Falsely accusing someone of rape isn't as bad as raping someone and shouldn't get the same prison sentence.

Two years seems pretty fair to me, that's not a trivial sentence.

against the possible 10 years for each of the men ???
you have got to be joking me - why should she get away with doing what she done

and yes 2 years for this CRIME is nothing - with good behavior she most likely will be out in 8 months

it really looks like women get softer sentences then men , why is this
i thought we were all equal in the eyes of the law - my arse we are

it happens so much that a garda i know told me that in ballymun garda station they used to take bets on what number of rape accusations would turn out to be false - scummy thing for them to do IMO - but did show to me how many false accusation the did get

there should be a mandatory sentence for false accusation any sex crime

My name is URL

dj jarvis wrote: »

against the possible 10 years for each of the men

'Possible' being the most important part of that sentence. I'm sure if the men had been sent forward to trial and subsequently imprisoned; her sentence would have been a lot more severe. They spent 2 days in police custody and were then released without charge.

These sentences are weighed up and handed out by people that know far more about this stuff than us. I very much doubt that the 2 year sentence was plucked out of this air. Many things would have been taken into account for the judge to arrive at his decision.

dark crystal

dj jarvis wrote: »

it happens so much that a garda i know told me that in ballymun garda station they used to take bets on what number of rape accusations would turn out to be false - scummy thing for them to do IMO - but did show to me how many false accusation the did get

How did they work out which accusations were false as a matter of interest? Did the women actually admit to lying or did they just drop the charges(which of course doesn't equate to making a false accusation)?

say_who_now?

smurgen wrote: »

The only one who was naïve in the situation you found yourself in was you.if that 15 year old girl was smart enough to know the damage an accusation of rape would do then she wasn't naïve.you are deliberatly playing down the seriousness of a false rape claim.in your situation Not going to the cops and letting chinese whispers go around town probable added fuel to the fire.Just hoping the story would go away would make you look like More of a rapist.i'd go straight to the cops and tackle the accusation head on.

I'm not deliberately playing down anything, I'm just not blowing something out of all proportion. If this girl had approached the Gardai we'd be talking a completely different situation then alright. I chose not to fuel rumors and gossip because as is quite often the case in these situations- some people never let the facts get in the way of a good story! In my opinion this girl was naive at the time because she said something in anger amongst her friends at the time, who then chose to spread it outside their own circle, but what surprised me was when grown adults that had known me years chose to believe the story simply because it suited them to do so. In my opinion this girl had thought she could just say something to her friends and it'd be forgotten about five minutes later. That didn't happen and the story grew far beyond her control.

smurgen wrote: »

Also why do you keep making sly insinuations against the 3 lads involved?

Forgive me for being unclear, I hadn't meant to insinuate anything. In my opinion it's a fact that they were lecherous, insidious pricks! Hope that makes it clearer for you.

smurgen

Forgive me for being unclear, I hadn't meant to insinuate anything. In my opinion it's a fact that they were lecherous, insidious pricks! Hope that makes it clearer for you.[/Quote]

The only fact in for certain in this story is that that woman is a liar.you simply have to take an accusation of rape so seriously becase rape is such a a serious crime.such an accusation could even destroy relationships with female relatives.

One of the few things we actual own in this world is our own reputation.it's hard to build up and very easy to destroy.we have to protect from our own bad impulses and the deviousness of others.imo you played russian roulette with yours

dj jarvis

dark crystal wrote: »

How did they work out which accusations were false as a matter of interest? Did the women actually admit to lying or did they just drop the charges(which of course doesn't equate to making a false accusation)?

i have no idea tbh , he just mentioned it in passing - im presuming it was charges dropped when said person sobered up or their anger had subsided

dj jarvis

My name is URL wrote: »

'Possible' being the most important part of that sentence. I'm sure if the men had been sent forward to trial and subsequently imprisoned; her sentence would have been a lot more severe. They spent 2 days in police custody and were then released without charge.

These sentences are weighed up and handed out by people that know far more about this stuff than us. I very much doubt that the 2 year sentence was plucked out of this air. Many things would have been taken into account for the judge to arrive at his decision.

but i think your missing the point - if they had been found guilty and it was never proven that they did not do it, they would have their lives destroyed

family broken up - the damage would have been immense - yet she gets 2 years
sorry - im all for being liberal in dealing with prisoners , but this gee bag deserves more time - my view and im sorry if it upsets ya

and these sentences are handed out by people who know far more than us ???
would this be the same people who handed out a 6 MONTH sentence for a scum bag who attempted to rape a poor girl on griffith ave

bollix - that woman is getting away lightly

say_who_now?

smurgen wrote: »

One of the few things we actual own in this world is our own reputation.it's hard to build up and very easy to destroy.we have to protect from our own bad impulses and the deviousness of others.imo you played russian roulette with yours

I would argue that your reputation is earned, bestowed upon you by others. The reputation of a child molesting pervert was bestowed upon me by those who chose to believe spurious rumors and gossip. I'll say it again- the only people that surprised me in this regard were those that I had presumed were my friends.

The only reputation I had before the incident was that I was a somewhat sexually promiscuous individual. I didn't put much stock in what complete strangers to me thought of me then, and tbh I still don't. There was no playing Russian roulette with any perceived reputation, unless you mean the potential consequences of my being assaulted. I was viciously assaulted yes, but I never reported it because the four thugs who assaulted me actually came off the worst of the encounter than I did. Hence why I never thought my life was at risk and why I never reported the assault.

Quorum

py2006 wrote: »

When you are around a little bit longer you will see a bigger picture.

Lulz.

hatrickpatrick

Quorum wrote: »

I agree that the Romeo and Juliet law is CRAZY. By less broad, I meant that rape is only classified as violation with a penis in Ireland whereas in other countries, that is extended to penetration with objects also. That's what I was referring to. I agree that "rape" should be extended to violation with objects in this country, and yes, that could be a good thing for men also.

I would say though, that if a man doesn't consent to sex, being USUALLY physically stronger means he should be able to prevent it. So it's generally not as much of an issue.

It may not be, but what if he was too drunk to consent for instance? If that's something women can accuse a man of rape for, the exact opposite should also hold true, which is impossible when the current law refers only to "penetration" rather than "sex".
This is about principle more than anything else to be honest. The law should be gender blind.

mackg

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Why?

She made a false accusation, she didn't sexual abuse/attack anyone.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_trial/sex_offenders_register.html

There is a long list of reasons for going on the list, not exclusive to carrying out rape/ sexual abuse IMO this should be treated as a crime of that nature. If all those crimes are worthy of being on a publicly viewable list then I think this should be there too. Although a separate list as Mike65 said might be better. If I was going to be going on a date with a girl and found out she had a history of false rape allegations I wouldn't bother, the same as someone who found out they were about to meet up with a rapist more than likely wouldn't bother. Just to be clear I'm not equating rape accusations with the act of rape, just placing it in the same category.

Madam_X wrote: »

That was likely the intention in the first place. It should just be about how these three guys had their lives ruined

I'm delighted these men's names have been cleared though and that woman is facing consequences for the terrible thing she did. Hopefully she is very remorseful and hopefully the men's lives won't be messed up by "no smoke without fire" crap.

She's not, that's what the investigating officer said anyway.

token101 wrote: »

2 years for what she did is a joke. 7 or 8 years would be fairer considering that's the minimum that any rapist would get for more than one rape.

Minimum is 6 possibly before the factoring in of mitigating circumstances.

MrGeneric wrote: »

And if someone gouges out a person's eye, the state should then gouge out the offender's eye in retaliation?

Applying that logic to the original crime, the woman should be accused of rape, not imprisoned for whatever length of time the men would have received.

Two years in prison and a destroyed reputation is not a light sentence, particularly for a crime which traditionally is never punished at all.

Just because something isn't traditionally punished doesn't mean it shouldn't be, rape within a marriage as an example although that has changed now.

Millicent wrote: »

That ignores the difficulties of coming forward for cases of sexual crime. Yes, this woman is vile and deserves to be punished but inflicting very severe sentencing on her will only discourage genuine cases from coming forward to report a crime that has low accusal and conviction rates.

I don't agree with dishing out a huge sentence to her either but I don't think this is a good reason for deciding it. The crime should be judged on it's merits.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Miscarriages of justice happen, and wrongful acquittals are the lesser of two evils if the alternative is destroying the lives of innocent people.
The reverse opinion is eat led to Ye Guilford Four being imprisoned for such an outrageously long time.

You are apparently suggesting the implementation of a bias in criminal trials and doing it in a very disingenuous way. Surely it doesn't have to be explained how wrongfully acquitting guilty rapists could lead to the destruction of innocent lives just as the imprisonment of the innocent does? The obvious solution is like Millicent said, aim for the right outcome every time. Anything else is stupid.

Piste wrote: »

Except it wasn't, she most likely did it out of desperation and self-preservation because she was drunk and didn't want to be seen as a "slapper" for sleeping with 3 men, she panicked and accused them of rape, which she later confessed to when pressed. You're contrasting this to rape, in which one person takes utter control of anothers body, violates them in the most intimate way possible and leaves them with the very real possibility of an STI or pregnancy. The two are not comparable in the slightest.

She confessed when confronted because the police were apparently aware it was BS and she knew she was caught. She isn't as innocent as you would like to make her out to be. Also as already stated she didn't show a scrap of remorse for her actions. Someone who "did it out of panic" would surely show some remorse no?

haulagebasher wrote: »

Hecause I know the two people in question. How do you know they DID do it? The Taxi driver has always gone out of his way to help people and is very popular on the local GAA scene.

...

So in essesnce, I think that there a lot more serious crimes than rape and often the sentences don't reflect the seriousness. For example IMO, GBH or serious assault should attract a longer sentence than rapes.

I was trying to think of a word for this and the only one I could think of was innocent. "He wouldn't do that he's a nice fella", come on man. If there is something concrete by all means share but this is just nonsense and the fact that people hold this opinion gives potential rapists the idea that the victim won't be believed.

Handsome Bob wrote: »

At the risk of sounding callous, these chaps happily triple teamed the same woman. Somehow I don't see them as sensitive souls who will be mentally crippled for life. They'll get over it.

Not at all fair. Judging them like that is no different to branding a girl a slapper because she took part in the foursome. Can't we just not judge people on their sex lives at all? Might lead to us all having a bit more fun in the long run.

bluewolf wrote: »

Even if it were a troll, the people who queue up after a rape conviction to shake the man's hand are probably sincere
Even if that only happened once that I've heard

I'm going to admit that my father was originally from close to Listowel and he sympathised with that guy. A HUGE amount of people from there are of that opinion it wasn't just restricted to the people that were in the court. I do think however that it is more prevalent in the older generation and that as a whole we are progressing away from that attitude.

I'm not surprised there are people in here saying it would be fitting if she got raped down the line considering the most thanked posts in threads about rape are the ones saying they hope the rapist gets it in prison. Madam X isn't sure who would do the raping but if it was brought in, going by opinions around here, whoever it was would be kept busy.

MrGeneric

mackg wrote: »

Just because something isn't traditionally punished doesn't mean it shouldn't be, rape within a marriage as an example although that has changed now.

I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I didn't write that false accusations shouldn't be punished. I'm glad that a sentence was handed out in this case to send a message. I would be in favour of her serving more jail time in fact.

py2006 wrote: »

When you are around a little bit longer you will see a bigger picture.

Why don't you impart some of your hard-earned wisdom? Paint the picture I'm struggling to see, instead of posting transparent deflections that make you sound like an ass.

steddyeddy

I dont know about prison but she has made it harder for genuine rape victims to come forward for fear they wont be believed.

Quorum

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It may not be, but what if he was too drunk to consent for instance? If that's something women can accuse a man of rape for, the exact opposite should also hold true, which is impossible when the current law refers only to "penetration" rather than "sex".

Rape tends to refer to penetration pretty much everywhere. If penetration doesn't occur, it's sexual assault. I'd say sexual assault would be much more likely to be inflicted on a drunk man by a woman than rape.

TheBoss!

say_who_now? wrote: »

Because to suit their own needs the daily mail would never misquote anybody or attribute quotations to persons that they never made, would they? Riiiiight. Quality broadsheet alright! :rolleyes:

What ta suffering fcuk?

How about the following media sources that also quote the same member of the investigation team then:

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Jail-Nottingham-woman-rape-claim/story-16922220-detail/story.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/346881/Cry-rape-girl-jailed-for-two-years
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-jailed-false-rape-claim-135145849.html
http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/national/news/9935103.Woman_jailed_for_false_rape_claim/

They're all making up the same quote I suppose.

Look, admit you were wrong - it wasn't a "tidbit" no matter if you believed it to be. The girl showed no signs of remorse and you can take whatever personal stance you like against the Daily Mail and their style of reporting and indeed roll your eyes even further back in your head if you wish also, makes no odds as the fact is that she showed no signs of feeling remorse at what she put these men through.

Tbh, I find it kinda ironic that you would refer to the paper as the Daily Fail when you are no stranger to writing tripe yourself:

I don't think for a second that these guys lives were "ruined" by this, quite likely I would wager that they weren't as put out as the daily fail would have you believe.

They showed no conscience in all three of them taking advantage of a drunk girl.

I think she has been punished sufficiently already, just unfortunate for her that she now has a permanent criminal conviction

Ever think of applying for a job at the Mirror?

say_who_now?

TheBoss! wrote: »

Look, admit you were wrong - it wasn't a "tidbit" no matter if you believed it to be. The girl showed no signs of remorse and you can take whatever personal stance you like against the Daily Mail and their style of reporting and indeed roll your eyes even further back in your head if you wish also, makes no odds as the fact is that she showed no signs of feeling remorse at what she put these men through.

I'm naturally cynical of what I read in the papers anyway, especially the tabloids, but if it means that much to you- I was wrong when I said they must have twisted the detective's opinion that she showed no remorse.

As for "what she put these men through", awh the poor dears, they spent a night in the cells for their depraved little fùckfest. How will they ever live down the notoriety shame amongst their peers? What this girl did was despicable, what they did to her was just as despicable. As madam X said earlier- skanky behaviour all round.

TheBoss! wrote: »

Tbh, I find it kinda ironic that you would refer to the paper as the Daily Fail when you are no stranger to writing tripe yourself:
Ever think of applying for a job at the Mirror?

No.

TheBoss!

say_who_now? wrote: »

As for "what she put these men through", awh the poor dears, they spent a night in the cells for their depraved little fùckfest.

You have to be trolling.

nacho libre wrote: »

not necessarily, she could just be a sociopath, rather than her lacking empathy because of previous sexual abuse.

Oh, I don't doubt that that is indeed a possibility, here is one such nut:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxwPU0W-Wg

goodie2shoes

it's all too easy for some slapper to go out dresses like a pro, get blathered, bed half a dozen innocent men, and then cry fowl when she doesn't get a bouquet of flowers or a box of chocs the next day.

feminist types get their knickers in a twist about so-called victims of rape being cross-examined, having their stories challenged in court, and having their sex history brought up.

but stories like this demonstrate very clearly why such cross-examination is necessary.

she ought to have got 10 years imo. such a sentence might have encouraged her and others to keep her mouth (and legs) shut!;)

the groutch

hopefully she'll be sued for defamation too

Millicent

goodie2shoes wrote: »

it's all too easy for some slapper to go out dresses like a pro, get blathered, bed half a dozen innocent men, and then cry fowl when she doesn't get a bouquet of flowers or a box of chocs the next day.

feminist types get their knickers in a twist about so-called victims of rape being cross-examined, having their stories challenged in court, and having their sex history brought up.

but stories like this demonstrate very clearly why such cross-examination is necessary.

she ought to have got 10 years imo. such a sentence might have encouraged her and others to keep her mouth (and legs) shut!;)

Yeah, this is the epitome of the attitude that causes "feminist types [to] get their knickers in a twist" about sexual history questioning being allowed in court. Guess what? Women who dress "like a pro" (whatever the fuck that means) get raped. Women in burkas are raped. Virgins are raped. Prostitutes are raped. Their sexual history has nothing to do with the crime at hand.

Millicent

the groutch wrote: »

hopefully she'll be sued for defamation too

I think the guys should too. Pretty clear-cut case of it.

JRant

say_who_now? wrote: »

TheBoss! wrote: »

Look, admit you were wrong - it wasn't a "tidbit" no matter if you believed it to be. The girl showed no signs of remorse and you can take whatever personal stance you like against the Daily Mail and their style of reporting and indeed roll your eyes even further back in your head if you wish also, makes no odds as the fact is that she showed no signs of feeling remorse at what she put these men through.

I'm naturally cynical of what I read in the papers anyway, especially the tabloids, but if it means that much to you- I was wrong when I said they must have twisted the detective's opinion that she showed no remorse.

As for "what she put these men through", awh the poor dears, they spent a night in the cells for their depraved little fùckfest. How will they ever live down the notoriety shame amongst their peers? What this girl did was despicable, what they did to her was just as despicable. As madam X said earlier- skanky behaviour all round.

TheBoss! wrote: »

Tbh, I find it kinda ironic that you would refer to the paper as the Daily Fail when you are no stranger to writing tripe yourself:
Ever think of applying for a job at the Mirror?

No.

Depraved, no. Inconsiderate, yes.
You'd never get away with a 6 baller down the local golf course, 4 ball maximum on any one hole

JENNYWREN19

Agent Smith wrote: »

She should have gotten a sentence in line with what the men would have got if they were guilty

That seems appropriate. Woman like this need psychiatric help and/or a stiff prison sentence. They hinder genuine rape allegations and put innocent men through hell.

On the other side of the coin- lads if you meet a women on a night out who's prepared to have sex with you and your two mates, run like hell.

goodie2shoes

Millicent wrote: »

Yeah, this is the epitome of the attitude that causes "feminist types [to] get their knickers in a twist" about sexual history questioning being allowed in court. Guess what? Women who dress "like a pro" (whatever the fuck that means) get raped. Women in burkas are raped. Virgins are raped. Prostitutes are raped. Their sexual history has nothing to do with the crime at hand.

this story clearly demonstrates why sexual history is probably the most important factor to consider in these cases.
or maybe you're trying to tell us this little madame was as pure a the virgin snow?:eek:

hatrickpatrick

mackg wrote: »

You are apparently suggesting the implementation of a bias in criminal trials and doing it in a very disingenuous way. Surely it doesn't have to be explained how wrongfully acquitting guilty rapists could lead to the destruction of innocent lives just as the imprisonment of the innocent does? The obvious solution is like Millicent said, aim for the right outcome every time. Anything else is stupid.

Not at all, I was referring to the claims that the Rape Crisis Center's statistics should be taken as absolute fact and therefore that it should be assumed that a lot of men who are cleared of rape actually are rapists and that the legal system simply failed to catch them. That is a horrific way of looking at things.

It's a lot worse for an innocent man or woman to end up in prison than for an innocent man or woman to go free wrongly, just in my opinion. So to put it in a different context, if there's a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, it's better to let them go than to take the risk of jailing them for something they didn't do and destroying their life.

This is already the status quo in court, innocent until proven guilty. I just find the constant berating of the low conviction rate for rape a little uneasy, because it implies that a lot of people who are not convicted, should in fact have been convicted - and by extension, that one should not need to be found guilty in court in order to be presumed guilty by society at large. This is fundamentally wrong.

I'll give you another example. Dominic Strauss Kahn, whether guilty or not, had the case against him dropped in the United States due to credibility issues against his accuser. He was not found guilty in court, legally speaking he IS innocent, as he has not been found guilty. Yet he still lost his job, and many, many sections of society and the media regard him as guilty even though nothing was ever proven against him.

The same can be said for Michael Jackson. How many people made jokes about him being a pedo despite the fact that at no point was he ever convicted of anything? That allegation smeared him for the rest of his life, and could very possibly have led at least in part to the depression which plagued him in his final years.

For anyone to belittle the damage a false sexual allegation does to the accused is madness - and anyone suggesting that because conviction rates are low, we should assume most accusers are still telling the truth - in other words, that most accused men who walk free are in fact actually guilty - is perpetuating and adding to this problem.

eviltwin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this story clearly demonstrates why sexual history is probably the most important factor to consider in these cases.
or maybe you're trying to tell us this little madame was as pure a the virgin snow?:eek:

Lots of rapes happen in non sexual settings. Even when they do sexual history is no indication of anything. Fair enough it should be known if there is a history of these kinds of claims but lets not go back to this idea that nice girls don't get raped, only the bad girls do and they probably asked for it.

Quorum

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this story clearly demonstrates why sexual history is probably the most important factor to consider in these cases.

How?