Martin Nolan give 1 year to guilty pedo.

fullstop

siblers wrote: »

I believe it's statutory rape when it's consensual sex with an underage person

Only if the underage person is female. A female can’t rape or statutory rape a male according to law. Which is a crock of ****.

meeeeh

fullstop wrote: »

Only if the underage person is female. A female can’t rape or statutory rape a male according to law. Which is a crock of ****.

Frankly I think Irish laws around underage rape/sex are pretty ridiculous. Is it still that if two 15 year olds have sex boy can be prosecuted and girl can't? I'm all for prosecutions of sexual crimes and teacher in this case abused her position but I think the high age limit in Ireland is set in the hope that kids will behave themselves. Kids never behave themselves and it would be nice if the law reflected reality and not some idealised idea of how girls and boys should behave.

SEPT 23 1989

Every lads fantasy back in the day

Never mind the b0llix

Quantum Erasure

harsh sentence, a month or two would have done just as well, if there was need for a custodial sentence at all

RandomName2

meeeeh wrote: »

Frankly I think Irish laws around underage rape/sex are pretty ridiculous. Is it still that if two 15 year olds have sex boy can be prosecuted and girl can't? I'm all for prosecutions of sexual crimes and teacher in this case abused her position but I think the high age limit in Ireland is set in the hope that kids will behave themselves. Kids never behave themselves and it would be nice if the law reflected reality and not some idealised idea of how girls and boys should behave.

Always knew that it was a slippery slope once they allowed the quares to to have sex in 1993. Now you have people saying that teens should be free to have sex without the fear of God. This country was built on shame and fear, but ever since the Church has been seen no longer as a guiding light, we've faced a torrent of filth where people talk about sex, see things of a sexual nature, and engage in non matrimonial sex in complete abandon!

Also on a serious note, yes, it's illegal either way, but boys can be prosecuted but girls can't, which is supposed to be due to the risk of criminalizing teenage mothers.

Michael Mc Dowell: Section 4 allows for summary disposal of minor offences under the Act. Section 5 ensures a female under 17 years of age cannot be guilty of an offence under section 1 or 2 by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse. This is being introduced after several representations including those of the Law Reform Commission going back to 1990 and the strongly held views of the Director of Public Prosecutions this week. They believe it would be wrong to stigmatise mothers and pregnant girls of 15 or 16 years of age as if they were either the victims of violent rape or they had committed a crime"

I'll leave it to others to try and work out the logic of that.

Justin Credible Darts

Peter Flynt wrote: »

A lot of moronic mysognistic stuff on here demanding death by stoning simply because the teacher is female and not male and "only got" a one year sentence.

Fact is she got 3 years.
She was made an example of by a judge who lets paedophile men with thousands of images of children being abused or raped for off for next to nothing.

In addition the legal age for sex across virtually all EU countries is 16 years (with admittedly exceptions for those in positions around teenagers)

Also .... As Joe Jackson might say...don't you know that it's different for girls.

Women don't have throbbing cocks ready for penetration.
That 16yo guy was no more abused than I was having to read moronic posts on this thread.

So a woman who deliberately broke the law. knowingly knew shagging her pupil was morally and illegally wrong is now some sort of victim. ?


While the legal child she deliberately took advantage of is the one to blame because he has a cock.


Tell me how you are not biased.


She broke the law, and no feminist horsesh1t will change that., as you seem to have been brainwashed.
you can whine about the sentence, her non existent naivety, and all the excuses you want, but she was guilty and broke the law, and as a teacher abused her position with children.


If a man spoke how a woman had a throbbing vagina he would be lambasted and accused of defending a predator.


Are you really that dense ?

Rubberchikken

how is ahe any different to say tom humphries?
she knew full well what she was doing.

ive no sympathy for her and she deserves a lot more than 1 year or whatever.

playing the female card is a very low trick. guilty is guilty irrespective of gender.

Arrival

Absolutely sick of the media using the term sex when it's a female offender

Quantum Erasure

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

So a woman who deliberately broke the law. knowingly knew shagging her pupil was morally and illegally wrong is now some sort of victim. ?

she (claims she) didn't think it was illegal, otherwise she wouldn't have pursued it...

While the legal child she deliberately took advantage of is the one to blame because he has a cock.

no-ones saying the pupil is the one to 'blame', no one is saying that the teacher is the 'victim', just the scale of blame and victimhood might not be accurately reflected in the sentencing

tdf7187

The reality is that there is a lot of toleration for child abuse in Ireland. The narrative of 'we've cleaned up our act and it was all the Catholic Church's fault' does not stack up. The Catholic Church, which I'm no fan of, is basically a scapegoat for failures of the secular authorities.

Look into the Ray Farina, Tom Humphreys, and Judge Curtin cases. And the former government minister who wasn't prosecuted and who we are still not permitted to name, Kincora and others.

Quantum Erasure

Rubberchikken wrote: »

how is ahe any different to say tom humphries?
she knew full well what she was doing..

well, to be honest theres a world of difference between grooming a 14 year old girl through daily texts untill shes 16, and meeting a student out in a pub / club, and waiting a few months to bed them

Peter Flynt

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

So a woman who deliberately broke the law. knowingly knew shagging her pupil was morally and illegally wrong is now some sort of victim. ?


While the legal child she deliberately took advantage of is the one to blame because he has a cock.


Tell me how you are not biased.


She broke the law, and no feminist horsesh1t will change that., as you seem to have been brainwashed.
you can whine about the sentence, her non existent naivety, and all the excuses you want, but she was guilty and broke the law, and as a teacher abused her position with children.


If a man spoke how a woman had a throbbing vagina he would be lambasted and accused of defending a predator.


Are you really that dense ?

She broke the law and got punished for it.

Case closed.

MarkR

Ardent wrote: »

Yes, read the news.

I did read the news. The word "consent" comes up twice. Neither of which stated that the boy consented. What news reports are you reading? Not the one linked in the opening post it seems.

RandomName2

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

So a woman who deliberately broke the law. knowingly knew shagging her pupil was morally and illegally wrong is now some sort of victim. ?

Who is a victim? The 16 year old guy who got to ride his objectively hot teacher, or the woman who had her life destroyed. Clearly.. clearly it is the 16 year old guy.

I think my issue here is that she could be facing the same sort of penalty if she wasn't his teacher, and that consent is virtually irrelevant. I think a 16 year old guy with an attractive 23 year old woman is not the most heinous thing imaginable.

Quite honestly the only reasons I can think of for anyone saying that it is is either due to either railing against an idea of double standards (which they have a point with, but doesn't really make them right) or just simple, unadorned envy.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

My parents were the strictest in the village. We still managed to sneak out and into over 18s clubs and get pissed. So did most of our friends. We all had some form of fake ID's. Kids these days are no different.



As a teacher she would have had specific child protection and safeguarding training - more than a lot of adults who still would steer well clear of a kid they knew to be 15 in a club.

I was in Sir Henry's when I was 15, was 5'10" and looked a LOT older. My parents would have taken my head off if they knew that.

If she had made the mistake that night there would be SOME consideration, even if a woman well into her 20s is cracking on with a kid passing as 18.
She discovered his age, realised she was his teacher, groomed him until 16 (a teacher not knowing the age of consent!!) and on his birthday defiled the child.

Everyone goes on about toxic masculinity, when it suits their agenda, yet ignores that women predators use that exact societal view to excuse their crimes. In fact society even tries to explain their hunting.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

Who is a victim? The 16 year old BOY who got to ride his objectively hot teacher, or the woman who had her life destroyed. Clearly.. clearly it is the 16 year old BOY.

I think my issue here is that she could be facing the same sort of penalty if she wasn't his teacher, and that consent is virtually irrelevant. I think a 16 year old BOY with an attractive 23 year old woman is not the most heinous thing imaginable.

Quite honestly the only reasons I can think of for anyone saying that it is is either due to either railing against an idea of double standards (which they have a point with, but doesn't really make them right) or just simple, unadorned envy.

So who is the criminal in a hot 23 year old guy and a 16 year old girl? Please explain why it's evil one way and not the other.

Also, fixed your post

Brock Turnpike

Brock Turnpike wrote: »

And that should be the end of the rape chatter in the thread.

What it should be is for a call to get the wording of that law changed as it really only assumes that men are capable of violent sexual crimes

Cyclingtourist

There was this case in France where a 15 yo boy and his 39 yo teacher started a 'relationship' .........she's now the President's wife.

This jailed Irish teacher is a feminist icon in my book. The IT should start a campaign to have her released and maybe ask her to write a column. As she's an English teacher she should be up to the task and do a better job than some of their current staff.

RandomName2

Deleted User wrote: »

So who is the criminal in a hot 23 year old guy and a 16 year old girl?

In Derry, Manchester, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Cardiff, Lisbon, Madrid, Athens, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Vienna, Oslo, Brussels, Zurich, Prague, Bucharest, Budapest, the answer is neither, provided that they both gave consent.

In Dublin he would be automatically guilty of raping her regardless of any other circumstances.

In Tehran and Riyadh they both would be guilty, provided they weren't married.

RandomName2

RandomName2 wrote: »

In Derry, Manchester, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Cardiff, Lisbon, Madrid, Athens, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Vienna, Oslo, Brussels, Zurich, Prague, Bucharest, Budapest, the answer is neither, provided that they both gave consent.

In Dublin he would be automatically guilty of raping her regardless of any other circumstances.

In Tehran and Riyadh they both would be guilty, provided they weren't married.

We are in Ireland, only the 2nd line in your comment is anyway relevant.

marieholmfan

votecounts wrote: »

If this was a male teacher, it would have been a tougher sentence and the press would be hounding him calling him all sorts. She should have a proper stretch.

Female teacher :):D:P:cool:

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Female teacher :):D:P:cool:

What is that supposed to mean?

Peter Flynt

This case raises a separate issue on the age of consent.

In Ireland the age of consent is 17 which is one of the highest in the world.
We still haven't got over the "Sex is Dirty" Catholic Church upbringing.
It is complete headbanger stuff as this law is just ignored everyday but can become a serious issue if it reaches the courts with all sorts of claims (Rape etc)

Across the EU the age of consent ranges from 14 to 16.
It seems totally absurd that in Ireland what one person is doing is classified as rape whereas in another EU country it is perfectly legal.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

She discovered his age, realised she was his teacher, groomed him until 16 (a teacher not knowing the age of consent!!) and on his birthday...

Gave him the BEST PRESENT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Gave him the BEST PRESENT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope you realise what a disgusting comment that is.

Grooming children is grooming children.

Should any adult teacher who ****s an underage child be described as "giving the best present ever"?

If you think that is true, I hope you don't have children.

Cyclingtourist

I'm waiting for the next episode of this stupid case which will be the mother & boy suing the school for 'failing to protect his innocence' and possibly settling with its insurance company for a tidy sum. "I've had psychological problems since" I bet you have.

Cyclingtourist

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

I'm waiting for the next episode of this stupid case which will be the mother & boy suing the school for 'failing to protect his innocence' and possibly settling with its insurance company for a tidy sum. "I've had psychological problems since" I bet you have.

Stupid case?

You think it is ok for a teacher to have sex with a child?

Peter Flynt

Peter Flynt wrote: »

This case raises a separate issue on the age of consent.

In Ireland the age of consent is 17 which is one of the highest in the world.
We still haven't got over the "Sex is Dirty" Catholic Church upbringing.
It is complete headbanger stuff as this law is just ignored everyday but can become a serious issue if it reaches the courts with all sorts of claims (Rape etc)

Across the EU the age of consent ranges from 14 to 16.
It seems totally absurd that in Ireland what one person is doing is classified as rape whereas in another EU country it is perfectly legal.

Couple of things.

An age band would make sense, say age of consent is 17. 15 - 17 and the older person within 3 years? Both can consent. Currently 2 16 year olds having sex and one turns 17, you can have the same issue (unless that has changed fairly recently)

An adult well in to their 20s grooming a 15 year old is not acceptable.

A teacher using their position of influence over a pupil (underage) is also not acceptable. Nor is it in the scenario of a lecturer but at that stage at least you are into adult-ish territory, in terms of maturity and authority effects.

She did not rape him, even of the statutory nature, as a woman can not rape a male. This needs changing, particularly in light of the fact that rape can now occur in the case of 2 drunk participants. Both equally drunk, both consent, but man can be arrested later.
Threat of physical violence is also not the only way of forcing someone to have sex.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote: »

Gave him the BEST PRESENT EVER!!!!!!!!!!!

So you would be happy if a male teacher had sex with a 16 year old pupil (boy or girl)?

Peter Flynt

Cyclingtourist wrote: »

I'm waiting for the next episode of this stupid case which will be the mother & boy suing the school for 'failing to protect his innocence' and possibly settling with its insurance company for a tidy sum. "I've had psychological problems since" I bet you have.

Apaprently they've already claimed all that - suffering from anxiety, etc. . .
In other words. . . "We want money".

If the teacher was Garda vetted (and she would have been) then they have no case against the school. IMHO the school can't be held negligent for failing to predict the future.