Fair City [News, Spoilers & Discussion v5] Read Post #1 Before Contributing

The Talking Bread

hearmehearye wrote: »

So what's the likelihood Rachel is up the duff?

immaculate conception from Doug I think!! An anagram of our pigeon headed hero is U God!

Wanderer2010

Why does Damien tuck his head into his chest during every one of his scenes, putting enormous strain on his vertebrae in the process? It has become more and more noticeable the past 2 weeks whenever there is a scene where Damien is upset, ashamed or angry, he doesn't just stare at the floor, he brings his whole neck with him- if he stood up straight he would be about 6foot 5inches!

On another note, why do so many characters in this soap meet each other outside of Spar or Vinos every single episode? Its the laziest form of script writing possible and designed purely to get characters to meet each other. I know its nothing new in soaps but FC have zero tact- need 4 characters to meet? Simple- let them pass each other at the exact moment they need to several times a day- morning, dashing to the pub for lunch and then enjoying an evening walk, presumable whilst still fitting in their daily work and social life??

Cormdogg

The party and the cars, the two stupidest most pointless story lines in tandem

The Talking Bread

youwould wrote: »

That's the point though. Rachel was clearly drunk and she wasn't at all aware of what she was doing, and therefore was incapable of consenting. Doug was sober. So if he had responded to her kiss and let things go further, it would be classed as rape.

I'm delighted that for once the FC writers aren't completely changing a character for the sake of a storyline. That said, it's nice to see Eoghan is trying so hard to respect Katy's life and be a part of it.

you should research the legal areas surrounding a drunk person and sexual consent. Are you saying anyone with alcohol in their system is incapable of consenting............ There is a myriad of things to be considered re the mens rea aspect. Its far from black and white.

Besides, I've been very drunk before and while somewhat less fussy in the whole sexual encounter area, I was fully aware of my surroundings and what I was doing like Rachel appeared to be. Alcohol doesn't necessarily make you lose control of your mind!



Anyway, this is way off topic and an EXTREMELY serious topic which doesn't belong here so lets leave it there!!

jos28

Lisha wrote: »

http://rsvpmagazine.ie/remember-zumo-bishop-from-fair-city/

New look for Zumo

He looks amazing - BRING HIM BACK !!!

groucho marx

I missed tonight. Who are we blaming for the carnage at charlies?

jos28

groucho marx wrote: »

I missed tonight. Who are we blaming for the carnage at charlies?

Tommy the Ram - It's all his fault, everything is his fault. Pete is going to have egg on his face when they find out that it was Doug's fault.

youwould

jos28 wrote: »

Tommy the Ram - It's all his fault, everything is his fault. Pete is going to have egg on his face when they find out that it was Doug's fault.

Pete will probably find out about Doug's part in it and then hide the truth from Damo and the rest. We still don't know what Pete's beef is with Tommy. It's March now so I reckon we'll find out on Christmas Day when Pete, Dolores, Jackie, Neil, Doug, Bob, Charlie, Tommy, Damo, Caoimhe, the Brennans, the Bishops & the O'Briens all sit down to have Christmas dinner together in The Ballintyne.

Strazdas

I wonder how Orla and Wayne managed to patch up their differences? They appeared to be at each other's throats during the autumn, arguing constantly and then Wayne kissed Farrah, but now they seem all loved up again.

Flippyfloppy

youwould wrote: »

Pete will probably find out about Doug's part in it and then hide the truth from Damo and the rest. We still don't know what Pete's beef is with Tommy. It's March now so I reckon we'll find out on Christmas Day when Pete, Dolores, Jackie, Neil, Doug, Bob, Charlie, Tommy, Damo, Caoimhe, the Brennans, the Bishops & the O'Briens all sit down to have Christmas dinner together in The Ballintyne.

I know; Pete secretly loves Tommy! He wants a bit of the handyram!

The Talking Bread

youwould wrote: »

Pete will probably find out about Doug's part in it and then hide the truth from Damo and the rest. We still don't know what Pete's beef is with Tommy. It's March now so I reckon we'll find out on Christmas Day when Pete, Dolores, Jackie, Neil, Doug, Bob, Charlie, Tommy, Damo, Caoimhe, the Brennans, the Bishops & the O'Briens all sit down to have Christmas dinner together in The Ballintyne.

Apparently, but don't quote me on this, Tommy bought the last Sunny Delight from Spar a few weeks back and we all know how much Pete loves his Sunny D and we all know Spar is the only shop Carrigstown residents are allowed to shop in.

Also Pete is from Galway and despises Kilkenny over their hurling dominance and also The Ram is going to end up s $aging Carrie Crowley and The Ram is the father of the child who thinks he is the child of Pain Molloy who is the child of the woman who Pete proposed to 7 times in the space of a month last year.









Something like that....

walshb

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Anyway, this is way off topic and an EXTREMELY serious topic which doesn't belong here so lets leave it there!!

Considering Doug was very upset and brought up rape in the final scene with Sourpuss, then it's not really off topic.

The Talking Bread

walshb wrote: »

Considering Doug was very upset and brought up rape in the final scene with Sourpuss, then it's not really off topic.

This is the writers of Fair City. We have seen in the past their knowledge of precise law is very shaky and we have to acknowledge Doug would not be expected to have much legal awareness of the exact legal application of rape.

I would be extremely sure if Doug had had a sexual consenting encounter with Rachel in her condition as we last seen her that evening, which while drunk was hardly out of her mind, although she could legitimately report him, a judge would dismiss her case. I wouldnt like to think I could be convicted of rape for a lot of the sexual encounters I've had in such scenarios.

It's an extremely grey area but judges apply a lot of discretion to each individual case. By definition rape could be claimed under ANY alcoholic induced penetrative encounter but the law applies different standards. My opinion from acknowledging precedents and applying them to this case, ie if Rachel consented under her condition that night, as long as Doug did not apply any pressure to her to pursue her initiation would be that a judge would more than likely to dismiss her claims.

Plenty of witnesses to acknowledge that Rachel, whilst a bit drunk was well able to consciously consent at that particular time. I can only go by that scene and her condition as we see her.

As I said it's a grey area and an interesting area that can stoke much debate. We all have different opinions on it though I guess and I respect that.

I don't think this is the right forum to get into such a serious debate, and I don't want a mod warning whoch is why I made the comment about leaving the chat on this issue there.

coolhull

^^
I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's FC, remember? Next week it'll be forgotten about, and we'll be back to the fascinating story of how Wayne goes from being a shelf - stacker in Spar to being Transport Manager of a nationwide luxury car service.
It's all about being in the right place at the right time. The right place being the back alley behind a pub.
Sure isn't that where Michael O'Leary and Dennis O'Brien started their careers too?

Coat22

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Besides, I've been very drunk before and while somewhat less fussy in the whole sexual encounter area

Give me a shout the next time you're pissed so - I'm not that fussy even when sober:):)

(I'm presuming you're a MS Talking Bread here btw )

Strazdas

The Talking Bread wrote: »

This is the writers of Fair City. We have seen in the past their knowledge of precise law is very shaky and we have to acknowledge Doug would not be expected to have much legal awareness of the exact legal application of rape.

I would be extremely sure if Doug had had a sexual consenting encounter with Rachel in her condition as we last seen her that evening, which while drunk was hardly out of her mind, although she could legitimately report him, a judge would dismiss her case. I wouldnt like to think I could be convicted of rape for a lot of the sexual encounters I've had in such scenarios.

It's an extremely grey area but judges apply a lot of discretion to each individual case. By definition rape could be claimed under ANY alcoholic induced penetrative encounter but the law applies different standards. My opinion from acknowledging precedents and applying them to this case, ie if Rachel consented under her condition that night, as long as Doug did not apply any pressure to her to pursue her initiation would be that a judge would more than likely to dismiss her claims.

Plenty of witnesses to acknowledge that Rachel, whilst a bit drunk was well able to consciously consent at that particular time. I can only go by that scene and her condition as we see her.

As I said it's a grey area and an interesting area that can stoke much debate. We all have different opinions on it though I guess and I respect that.

I don't think this is the right forum to get into such a serious debate, and I don't want a mod warning whoch is why I made the comment about leaving the chat on this issue there.

I was a little surprised when Doug introduced the subject of "rape" into the conversation. Bearing in mind they are close friends, I thought the point of the previous night's scene was whether the two of them would have a drunken encounter of some description and then simply feel embarrassed about it the following morning (indeed, that was Rachel's actual interpretation of what happened).

dee_mc

Yeah but Doug obviously considers anything less than fully consensual sex to be rape.
I think it's an interesting spin on the storyline but I fear they will use this as the opener to the inevitable 'Rachel assumes Doug fancies her, then finds that he doesn't, then finds that she fancies him, hilarity and much confusion ensues, Doug and Rachel finally get together and Paul has a heart attack from the shock of his princess getting off with a lowly mechanic pigeon' storyline.

The Talking Bread

Coat22 wrote: »

Give me a shout the next time you're pissed so - I'm not that fussy even when sober:):)

(I'm presuming you're a MS Talking Bread here btw )

Ha what's a MS!!! Man Slut ??! Ha! Sure we could chat FC all night!!

I wish I could say Neassa was my consistent level but I've been known to settle with a Nina standard at a 3am occasion!! Haven't we all!

Disclaimer...Nina is a good looking girl. I just can't think of any others to make the HILARIOUS pun!! ; D

The Talking Bread

dee_mc wrote: »

Yeah but Doug obviously considers anything less than fully consensual sex to be rape.
I think it's an interesting spin on the storyline but I fear they will use this as the opener to the inevitable 'Rachel assumes Doug fancies her, then finds that he doesn't, then finds that she fancies him, hilarity and much confusion ensues, Doug and Rachel finally get together and Paul has a heart attack from the shock of his princess getting off with a lowly mechanic pigeon' storyline.

Doug and Rachel, the new Rachel and Ross!!! Charlotte can be Janice! !

littelady

If I was Pete I would be a little peed of myself, the ram is totally muscelling in on the business.

Flippyfloppy

dee_mc wrote: »

Yeah but Doug obviously considers anything less than fully consensual sex to be rape.
I think it's an interesting spin on the storyline but I fear they will use this as the opener to the inevitable 'Rachel assumes Doug fancies her, then finds that he doesn't, then finds that she fancies him, hilarity and much confusion ensues, Doug and Rachel finally get together and Paul has a heart attack from the shock of his princess getting off with a lowly mechanic pigeon' storyline.

Maybe Rachel passed out at the pod and that's why Doug said it would be like rape. Although good on the writers for drawing attention to the fact sometimes drunk people cannot consent...in fact if my memory serves me correctly there has been talk of changing the laws on consent, perhaps in the US

The Talking Bread

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

Maybe Rachel passed out at the pod and that's why Doug said it would be like rape. Although good on the writers for drawing attention to the fact sometimes drunk people cannot consent...in fact if my memory serves me correctly there has been talk of changing the laws on consent, perhaps in the US

My point was based on what scenes we witnessed just to reiterate!

Grandeeod

Just to clarify. In Irish law, the following is relevant.

the current rules outline that there is no consent where an individual submits to sexual activity as a result of force, fear, fraud or a lack of capacity owing to intoxication or unconsciousness.

So to sum up, the character of Rachael, could be deemed to be intoxicated and therefore not capable of consent. In that case Doug could be done if Rachael claims to be pissed and not in a fit state to consent.

Flippyfloppy

Grandeeod wrote: »

Just to clarify. In Irish law, the following is relevant.



So to sum up, the character of Rachael, could be deemed to be intoxicated and therefore not capable of consent. In that case Doug could be done if Rachael claims to be pissed and not in a fit state to consent.

Scary isn't it.... Some people seem grand when they're drunk and next day can't remember all that much (I've been known to be like that!)

The Talking Bread

Grandeeod wrote: »

Just to clarify. In Irish law, the following is relevant.



So to sum up, the character of Rachael, could be deemed to be intoxicated and therefore not capable of consent. In that case Doug could be done if Rachael claims to be pissed and not in a fit state to consent.

each case is taken on its own merits. by definition any drunken sex could be clasified as rape but legally judges apply discretion to each certain scenario. Which is my point that I have reiterated. As I said, its worth looking at case precedents if you don't understand the point I'm making.

Grandeeod

The Talking Bread wrote: »

each case is taken on its own merits. by definition any drunken sex could be clasified as rape but legally judges apply discretion to each certain scenario. Which is my point that I have reiterated. As I said, its worth looking at case precedents if you don't understand the point I'm making.

Listen this is a funny thread at the best of times, so I don't really want to get into the madness of rape. I was just trying to bring some reality to that aspect of it. I'm far from certain that FC writers are even that clever. However and for what its worth, the "intoxicated" aspect is always relevant, but as you say Judges can take different approaches to it.

The Talking Bread

Grandeeod wrote: »

Listen this is a funny thread at the best of times, so I don't really want to get into the madness of rape. I was just trying to bring some reality to that aspect of it. I'm far from certain that FC writers are even that clever. However and for what its worth, the "intoxicated" aspect is always relevant, but as you say Judges can take different approaches to it.

here here....

In the words of a great man...

Strazdas

Grandeeod wrote: »

Just to clarify. In Irish law, the following is relevant.



So to sum up, the character of Rachael, could be deemed to be intoxicated and therefore not capable of consent. In that case Doug could be done if Rachael claims to be pissed and not in a fit state to consent.

Bearing in mind the amount of people who have sex while drunk in Ireland, this appears a minefield. Seems like anyone who regretted a sexual encounter and who had drink taken could claim they hadn't legally consented to it.

CollyFlower

Strazdas wrote: »

Bearing in mind the amount of people who have sex while drunk in Ireland, this appears a minefield. Seems like anyone who regretted a sexual encounter and who had drink taken could claim they hadn't legally consented to it.

If we’re going to start jailing drunk men for having
drunken sex with drunk women, then we'll soon
see thousands of men behing charged who have made the mistake of not getting consent in writing.

MelanieC

Getting back to FC tho,Doug was sober and Rachel was drunk so had he gone for it it would've been a case of someone of completely sound mind (well,for Doug - lol!) taking advantage of someone not of sound mind due to severe intoxication. Not a level playing field I think is the crux of the issue.