Suspended sentence for sexual assault of four cousins

Graces7

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-man-gets-suspended-sentence-for-sexual-assaults-of-four-cousins-which-left-family-torn-apart-940144.html



Where were the parents?

eviltwin

Graces7 wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-man-gets-suspended-sentence-for-sexual-assaults-of-four-cousins-which-left-family-torn-apart-940144.html



Where were the parents?

Probably off doing something thinking their daughters were safe in the care of their cousin.

It's not their fault.

Plumbthedepths

Graces7 wrote:

Where were the parents?

What an utterly stupid question . Parents assumed their children were safe in the presence of a relative.

mad muffin

The court heard that the day after gardaí first met the women and the defendant, the man presented at a garda station and made full admissions.
Judge Sinead Ní Chúlacháin said he had pleaded guilty at an early stage which had provided some emotional comfort to his cousins as it was an acknowledgement that he had done wrong and they were to be fully believed.
The judge said he had shown an increasing awareness and insight into the impact of his offences on his victims.
She noted the Probation Service had assessed him as having a moderate risk of re-offending within the next five years.
The court heard he had been found unsuitable to take part in the Safer Lives treatment programme for convicted sex offenders but that there was the possibility of a place on another programme in early 2020.
Judge Ní Chúlacháin said no penalty she imposed on the man could take back what his victims had lost in terms of their innocence, trust and sense of security.
The judge imposed jail terms ranging from one year to four years for the six charges of sexual assault but suspended all of them.
A psychological report showed the accused suffered significant weaknesses in verbal reasoning, expression and comprehension and became vulnerable when feeling anxiety and depression and could become overwhelmed by his emotions.
The judge said he had reduced personal growth which hampered his feelings of empathy and she remained concerned that he had a limited understanding of the effects of his offences on his cousins.

Bull ****. Bull ****. Bull ****.

He assaulted four little girls. Not once but over and over. Even if he was 14 at the time. This wasn’t an accidental thing he did once to one of them.

tayto lover

Very sad







That Judges have much more to say about the perpetrator and his personality than they have to say about the victims.

fineso.mom

Graces7 wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-man-gets-suspended-sentence-for-sexual-assaults-of-four-cousins-which-left-family-torn-apart-940144.html



Where were the parents?

Assaults took place in bedrooms and bathrooms so it's quite possible the parents were in other rooms or outside. Nothing in that report to suggest the parents were in any way negligent?

jam_mac_jam

A suspended sentence? Jesus

Mrs OBumble

eviltwin wrote: »

Probably off doing something thinking their daughters were safe in the care of their cousin.

It's not their fault.

BS

The relative has "significant weaknesses in verbal reasoning, expression and comprehension and became vulnerable when feeling anxiety and depression and could become overwhelmed by his emotions."

Any parent should know that a 14 year old boy with issues like that should not have unsupervised access to young girls, whether they're related to him or not.

And the boy's parents are equally to blame.

eviltwin

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

BS

The relative has "significant weaknesses in verbal reasoning, expression and comprehension and became vulnerable when feeling anxiety and depression and could become overwhelmed by his emotions."

Any parent should know that a 14 year old boy with issues like that should not have unsupervised access to young girls, whether they're related to him or not.

And the boy's parents are equally to blame.

None of that would indicate a predisposition towards child abuse.

splinter65

Once parents accept that the overwhelming threat to their children of any kind of abuse comes from very close family and friends and not “the bogey man” ( the man in the black car/white van you read about on Sharons Facebook page, the paedophile released from prison and spotted by The Irish Sun buying a packet of cigarettes in a shop in the next town over) then these incidents will stop happening.
There are people I know who believe that all priests are paedophiles but will leave their kids with their sisters brand new boyfriend.

Mrs OBumble

eviltwin wrote: »

None of that would indicate a predisposition towards child abuse.

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

Thelonious Monk

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

Sh*t. I haven't had sex in nearly a year. When will I start molesting children?

Hoboo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

Wow

Judge Nhúlach said no penalty she imposed on the man could take back what his victims had lost in terms of their innocence, trust and sense of security.

so we'll just give up and not bother so???

meeeeh

I think it's clear from the report that he has some sort of intellectual disability. I 'm not minimising his crimes but how do you deal with someone who has limited capacity to understand what he did wrong.

jaxxx

bluewolf wrote: »

so we'll just give up and not bother so???

He should be locked up and that brainless judge along with him! Suspended sentences are an absolute joke, all the while these judges spit in the face of actual justice.

dickangel

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

I think you're confusing "likely" with "extremely rarely."

marklazarcovic

In a article underneath it a man was jailed for 4 years for theft of a phone and a bottle of wine from a waitress .

Minor Crime against a woman gets time, major crime against 4 different children gets no time.


Fcuk that .

ED E

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

You're off your rocker. Seriously. Blue balls at 14 does not a pedo make or we'd have 95% of males convicted. G'way with you.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

Making such a statement without providing any kind of credible report or a data source that supports it is an absolutely despicable thing to write about boys or men.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

The chan chan man

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

What....the....fu/ck...?!

lawred2

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

You absolute lunatic

Graces7

fineso.mom wrote: »

Assaults took place in bedrooms and bathrooms so it's quite possible the parents were in other rooms or outside. Nothing in that report to suggest the parents were in any way negligent?

We were taught at a very young age that boys of an age were not allowed in the bedrooms of girls in the family. and girls stayed out of boys rooms

and it was carefully monitored. Parents knew where their children were.

Even decades later I well remember the embargo.

All the more in this case as it was clear the boy was as he was.

Yes the parents were negligent and the girls , from 4 upwards, were the ones to suffer all their life long.

Graces7

meeeeh wrote: »

I think it's clear from the report that he has some sort of intellectual disability. I 'm not minimising his crimes but how do you deal with someone who has limited capacity to understand what he did wrong.

You ensure the occasion to abuse does not occur. You protect 4 year old girls.

meeeeh

Graces7 wrote: »

You ensure the occasion to abuse does not occur. You protect 4 year old girls.

I was talking about sentencing and imprisonment. I know nothing about the home situation of the victims, what arrangements were made, how vigilant were parents or any other circumstances and neither do you. There is always somebody on the sidelines who knows exactly what should be done after something happens.

Btw I had a lot of male friends, cousins and a brother and was allowed into all of their bedrooms and nothing ever happened. Because things like that normally don't happen and this type of hysterical overreaction to normal friendships between boys and girls is rather unhealthy.

splinter65

meeeeh wrote: »

I was talking about sentencing and imprisonment. I know nothing about the home situation of the victims, what arrangements were made, how vigilant were parents or any other circumstances and neither do you. There is always somebody on the sidelines who knows exactly what should be done after something happens.

Btw I had a lot of male friends, cousins and a brother and was allowed into all of their bedrooms and nothing ever happened. Because things like that normally don't happen and this type of hysterical overreaction to normal friendships between boys and girls is rather unhealthy.

“Normally don’t happen”? I don’t know where you got that information but we only now know that well over 90% of sexually abused children are abused by very close family, brothers fathers uncles stepfathers grandfathers etc and not the bogey man as you and 1000s of others seem to believe.
The stories are only emerging now as Irish people struggle to accept that this is so. It was much easier to cope when it was always swimming coaches priests and Jimmy Savile.

meeeeh

splinter65 wrote: »

“Normally don’t happen”? I don’t know where you got that information but we only now know that well over 90% of sexually abused children are abused by very close family, brothers fathers uncles stepfathers grandfathers etc and not the bogey man as you and 1000s of others seem to believe.
The stories are only emerging now as Irish people struggle to accept that this is so. It was much easier to cope when it was always swimming coaches priests and Jimmy Savile.

And because of that you would forbid any boys and girls to socialise?

I'm well aware what the stats around abuse are but if you think I'm going to forbid my daughter enter her brother's bedroom and forbid him enter hers. And they are even allowed to play without someone present in the room. I might be naive but I don't suspect my family members to be abusers. Most people don't and most people don't abuse their family members.

blue note

splinter65 wrote: »

Once parents accept that the overwhelming threat to their children of any kind of abuse comes from very close family and friends and not “the bogey man” ( the man in the black car/white van you read about on Sharons Facebook page, the paedophile released from prison and spotted by The Irish Sun buying a packet of cigarettes in a shop in the next town over) then these incidents will stop happening.
There are people I know who believe that all priests are paedophiles but will leave their kids with their sisters brand new boyfriend.

So are you suggesting that parents no longer leave kids with uncles, grand parents, siblings? Of course you have to remember that it's actually the parents a lot of the time who are the offenders in abuse cases. Maybe they shouldn't be alone with your kids either?

What your suggesting is a sad sad suggestion. Kids extended families should very much be part of their lives and the preferred people to mind the kids when a minder is needed. If you've reason to doubt someone that's obviously a different story.

As awful as these horror stories are, you have to remember that they're the rare exceptions. I read a while back that cases of abuse are lower than they were 40 years ago, but because of modern media (social and other) we hear about them far more. We should be mindful of them but not let them dictate our lives.

Prestonites

I understand due process and the ability to allow a judge or jury call this, but Lord some of the cases are becoming fairly horrific and their sentences are not being dealt with harsh enough

Tokyo

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Actually it would.

A male who is unable to get his needs met by same-age peers is likely to look for sexual action with younger more vulnerable children.

Mod: I'd really like to see a source for that before you continue that line of discussion.

eviltwin

Graces7 wrote: »

You ensure the occasion to abuse does not occur. You protect 4 year old girls.

I'm always very wary of any line of thinking that makes criminals out of any group for no legitimate reason. That's a very dangerous road to go down.

Graces7

meeeeh wrote: »

I was talking about sentencing and imprisonment. I know nothing about the home situation of the victims, what arrangements were made, how vigilant were parents or any other circumstances and neither do you. There is always somebody on the sidelines who knows exactly what should be done after something happens.

Btw I had a lot of male friends, cousins and a brother and was allowed into all of their bedrooms and nothing ever happened. Because things like that normally don't happen and this type of hysterical overreaction to normal friendships between boys and girls is rather unhealthy.

Given what happened your post is bizarre. This had nothing to do with friendships which we had, and again you are minimizing what happened to these four victims.

The parents were not careful and vigilant. The girls suffered because of that.

Graces7

splinter65 wrote: »

“Normally don’t happen”? I don’t know where you got that information but we only now know that well over 90% of sexually abused children are abused by very close family, brothers fathers uncles stepfathers grandfathers etc and not the bogey man as you and 1000s of others seem to believe.
The stories are only emerging now as Irish people struggle to accept that this is so. It was much easier to cope when it was always swimming coaches priests and Jimmy Savile.

Thank you for this realism.

The majority of girls incarcerated in the Magdalen Laundries, and the Mother and baby homes were raped and impregnated by close relatives; fathers, cousins, brothers.

This case was utterly shocking. Parents need to be vigilant.

Graces7

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm always very wary of any line of thinking that makes criminals out of any group for no legitimate reason. That's a very dangerous road to go down.

I did not do that, simply urged vigilance. Awareness.

Graces7

meeeeh wrote: »

And because of that you would forbid any boys and girls to socialise?

I'm well aware what the stats around abuse are but if you think I'm going to forbid my daughter enter her brother's bedroom and forbid him enter hers. And they are even allowed to play without someone present in the room. I might be naive but I don't suspect my family members to be abusers. Most people don't and most people don't abuse their family members.

But you know your kids. These parents clearly did not?

MSGSM

F**king sickening decision. How is he not in jail?

Plumbthedepths

Graces7 wrote:

The majority of girls incarcerated in the Magdalen Laundries, and the Mother and baby homes were raped and impregnated by close relatives; fathers, cousins, brothers.

Have you a source for this claim?

Graces7

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Have you a source for this claim?

It has long been known . It is accurate. it is something I researched in detail and gathered the info from various internal sources.

Plumbthedepths

Graces7 wrote:

It has long been known . It is accurate. it is something I researched in detail and gathered the info from various internal sources.

So you researched it and gathered the info from various sources? Grand so can you please provide a link to the research and sources you used. Lastly can you define exactly what you mean by 'internal sources'. You made a claim it's incumbent upon you to back it up.

grindle

The judge imposed jail terms ranging from one year to four years for the six charges of sexual assault but suspended all of them.

A psychological report showed the accused suffered significant weaknesses in verbal reasoning, expression and comprehension and became vulnerable when feeling anxiety and depression and could become overwhelmed by his emotions.

The judge said he had reduced personal growth which hampered his feelings of empathy and she remained concerned that he had a limited understanding of the effects of his offences on his cousins.

Whatever could go wrong?

eviltwin

Graces7 wrote: »

I did not do that, simply urged vigilance. Awareness.

You are though. You're blaming the parents because they left their girls alone with a male relative as if it was obvious he would abuse them. You might as well say every male is a potential rapist or child abuser and not to be trusted. If that's not a dangerous road I don't know what is.

Dravokivich

eviltwin wrote: »

You are though. You're blaming the parents because they left their girls alone with a male relative as if it was obvious he would abuse them. You might as well say every male is a potential rapist or child abuser and not to be trusted. If that's not a dangerous road I don't know what is.

I've been left alone with younger female relatives many times. I couldn't help being older than them, but as soon as I've a way of fixing it, I'll be right on it. Becuase that's the only way they'll be safe around me!

Odyssey 2005

I wonder what sentence would be handed down for paying the incorrect duty on garlic ?.;)

splinter65

meeeeh wrote: »

And because of that you would forbid any boys and girls to socialise?

I'm well aware what the stats around abuse are but if you think I'm going to forbid my daughter enter her brother's bedroom and forbid him enter hers. And they are even allowed to play without someone present in the room. I might be naive but I don't suspect my family members to be abusers. Most people don't and most people don't abuse their family members.

50 years ago incest wasn’t mentioned above a very private whisper and mostly raised eyebrows and winks and nudges. Now we all know (or at least we should know) that we don’t put our children in the way of possible danger.
Your child needs to know from very small without question or hesitation that their little body is very very precious and nobody NOBODY should touch them in anyway that makes them feel sad or scared.
That it doesn’t matter what ANYONE says to them that if they feel sad or scared by someone it doesn’t matter who it is they must immediately find mammy and tell her and she will make it better.
As a parent it is your duty to know where your child is who they are with and what they are doing. This is not very hard. It just requires your child to be your absolutely no 1 priority all of the time relentlessly.
14 year old male cousins if behaving completely naturally do not want nor should not want to mind younger female cousins.
Nor should they be asked.
If the 14 year old male cousin or any other male relative is the only babysitter you can find then don’t bother going out.
Use the information we have now wisely.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

50 years ago incest wasn’t mentioned above a very private whisper and mostly raised eyebrows and winks and nudges. Now we all know (or at least we should know) that we don’t put our children in the way of possible danger. Your child needs to know from very small without question or hesitation that their little body is very very precious and nobody NOBODY should touch them in anyway that makes them feel sad or scared. That it doesn’t matter what ANYONE says to them that if they feel sad or scared by someone it doesn’t matter who it is they must immediately find mammy and tell her and she will make it better. As a parent it is your duty to know where your child is who they are with and what they are doing. This is not very hard. It just requires your child to be your absolutely no 1 priority all of the time relentlessly. 14 year old male cousins if behaving completely naturally do not want nor should not want to mind younger female cousins. Nor should they be asked. If the 14 year old male cousin or any other male relative is the only babysitter you can find then don’t bother going out. Use the information we have now wisely.

This response is every bit as detestable as the comments from Mrs O'Bumble and Graces 7. No other word but 'disgraceful'.

Boggles

splinter65 wrote: »

If the 14 year old male cousin or any other male relative is the only babysitter you can find then don’t bother going out.

Get up the fúcking yard with this absolute twaddle.

Dravokivich

splinter65 wrote: »

50 years ago incest wasn’t mentioned above a very private whisper and mostly raised eyebrows and winks and nudges. Now we all know (or at least we should know) that we don’t put our children in the way of possible danger.
Your child needs to know from very small without question or hesitation that their little body is very very precious and nobody NOBODY should touch them in anyway that makes them feel sad or scared.
That it doesn’t matter what ANYONE says to them that if they feel sad or scared by someone it doesn’t matter who it is they must immediately find mammy and tell her and she will make it better.
As a parent it is your duty to know where your child is who they are with and what they are doing. This is not very hard. It just requires your child to be your absolutely no 1 priority all of the time relentlessly.
14 year old male cousins if behaving completely naturally do not want nor should not want to mind younger female cousins.
Nor should they be asked.
If the 14 year old male cousin or any other male relative is the only babysitter you can find then don’t bother going out.
Use the information we have now wisely.

Immediately find mammy? So its sexism your upto then?

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

This response is every bit as detestable as the comments from Mrs O'Bumble and Graces 7. No other word but 'disgraceful'.

I don’t think it’s right that you be allowed to describe a post as both detestable and disgraceful without pointing out which of my points and comments offend you.
But I suppose if you don’t know why you don’t like it or just don’t know how to express yourself then it can’t be helped.
I think your response is pathetic though, because you haven’t explained your revulsion.

splinter65

Boggles wrote: »

Get up the fúcking yard with this absolute twaddle.

You go ahead and leave your little kids to be babysat by their 14 year old cousin. Their your kids after all. I’m just giving you my standard, which was always pretty high.
14 year olds of either sex aren’t suitable babysitters, but it’s up to you.

splinter65

Dravokivich wrote: »

Immediately find mammy? So its sexism your upto then?

Sorry for being sexist. As ever on boards being PC is by far the most important thing.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

I don’t think it’s right that you be allowed to describe a post as both detestable and disgraceful without pointing out which of my points and comments offend you. But I suppose if you don’t know why you don’t like it or just don’t know how to express yourself then it can’t be helped. I think your response is pathetic though, because you haven’t explained your revulsion.

Feel free to report my comment, but your op is disgusting and seeks to portray every male as a potential pederast. I stand by how I described yours and your fellow travellers comments.