Attempted abduction in Dublin

KathleenGrant

Demi Billions River wrote: »

Yeah well maybe you better watch your back as well.

Do you see how that sounds threatening? There's no need for it, you're mansplaining going outside to grown-up people as though their gender means that their intelligence precludes them from making the correct judgement without your intervention.

That makes you part of a group of people who regard women as "less than", and I don't mean in the physical sense, because I know typically an average man is going to overpower and average woman. You're being condescending under the guise of concern because you get a powerful feeling of magnanimity when you give womankind sage advice to remind them of their inherent vulnerability.

We know outside is dangerous, we're the ones who have to go there. Thanks. I'm finished now.

I'm a woman. You do women no favours going on like this. I wouldn't write **** off cos I might get carded but I MAY have thought it.

splinter65

Demi Billions River wrote: »

Yeah well maybe you better watch your back as well.

Do you see how that sounds threatening? There's no need for it, you're mansplaining going outside to grown-up people as though their gender means that their intelligence precludes them from making the correct judgement without your intervention.

That makes you part of a group of people who regard women as "less than", and I don't mean in the physical sense, because I know typically an average man is going to overpower and average woman. You're being condescending under the guise of concern because you get a powerful feeling of magnanimity when you give womankind sage advice to remind them of their inherent vulnerability.

We know outside is dangerous, we're the ones who have to go there. Thanks. I'm finished now.

Did you come to this thread for an opportunity to rant? I’m a woman. This is just embarrassing.

SantaCruz

Tinychancer is making a reasonbable point about how patronising and paternalistic some of the posting here is. Not intentionally, obviously, but if you take a step back and look at it, it really is there.

Not something anyone with good intentions wants to hear, obviously - hence the reaction.

Anyway, like everyone here, I hope this is resolved quickly.

wiggle16

walshb wrote: »

Depends on the specific area...

Where she was attacked was not a main road. Quieter road, narrower road..

Was dark, not yet into the busy part of the morning.

It’s exactly why this monster chose that area...

Built up, open, well lit and busier road/area; he doesn’t attempt it.

Blackhorse Avenue is not a quiet road, I live around the corner from it. It is a narrower road but it has several entrances to the park and eventually meets the North Circular. It would not be extremely busy at that time but there are always cars going up and down, it's never an empty road apart from very late at night.

It seems to me a very stupid place to grab someone so I would wonder if the poor lady in question was targeted specifically. It's right next to the park, it would be much easier to grab someone in there, where it's dark, very little CCTV and plenty of people walking around (even at that hour of the morning).

KathleenGrant

SantaCruz wrote: »

Tinychancer is making a reasonbable point about how patronising and paternalistic some of the posting here is. Not intentionally, obviously, but if you take a step back and look at it, it really is there.

Not something anyone with good intentions wants to hear, obviously - hence the reaction.

Using the word mansplaining in her post was enough to turn me.

Working class heroes

Ah yes, the subtle trolling worked.

The 2020s

What, in this weather? You would think they’d stand out, going around in a t-shirt in winter. I’m assuming she gave other details that they can use to narrow down the attacker. I mean, there’s probably a queue of homeless people in t-shirts admitting it now, hoping to get a bed for the night.

GolfNut33

Demi Billions River wrote: »

Yeah well maybe you better watch your back as well.

Do you see how that sounds threatening? There's no need for it, you're mansplaining going outside to grown-up people as though their gender means that their intelligence precludes them from making the correct judgement without your intervention.

That makes you part of a group of people who regard women as "less than", and I don't mean in the physical sense, because I know typically an average man is going to overpower and average woman. You're being condescending under the guise of concern because you get a powerful feeling of magnanimity when you give womankind sage advice to remind them of their inherent vulnerability.

We know outside is dangerous, we're the ones who have to go there. Thanks. I'm finished now.

On your bike with that crap.

splinter65

bubblypop wrote: »

Gardai are not afraid. Don't be ridiculous.
They release the info they need to, they don't involve themselves in handing out gossip to the general public.
And, there has been very little info on this incident. I'd say there is more to this......

You are joking. Describing the distinguishing features of this latest loolaa would not be gossip but if he’s not white with blue eyes would unleash the howls of protest from the permanently offended army stalking the country at the moment.

Working class heroes

Demi Billions River wrote: »

Yeah well maybe you better watch your back as well.

Do you see how that sounds threatening? There's no need for it, you're mansplaining going outside to grown-up people as though their gender means that their intelligence precludes them from making the correct judgement without your intervention.

That makes you part of a group of people who regard women as "less than", and I don't mean in the physical sense, because I know typically an average man is going to overpower and average woman. You're being condescending under the guise of concern because you get a powerful feeling of magnanimity when you give womankind sage advice to remind them of their inherent vulnerability.

We know outside is dangerous, we're the ones who have to go there. Thanks. I'm finished now.

Why is everyone jumping on this post? I think it’s bang on.

Atlantic Dawn

A 'silver saloon' car, that narrows it down, probably 20,000 cars could be matches.

walshb

wiggle16 wrote: »

Blackhorse Avenue is not a quiet road, I live around the corner from it. It is a narrower road but it has several entrances to the park and eventually meets the North Circular. It would not be extremely busy at that time but there are always cars going up and down, it's never an empty road apart from very late at night.

It seems to me a very stupid place to grab someone so I would wonder if the poor lady in question was targeted specifically. It's right next to the park, it would be much easier to grab someone in there, where it's dark, very little CCTV and plenty of people walking around (even at that hour of the morning).

Good points.

But it’s all relative..

The Navan Road, for example...in comparison to where this lady was attacked, would be a far riskier place for a perp to attempt this...

eviltwin

Any suggestions that this was a targeted attack? It just seems an oddly busy location to attempt an abduction when the park is right beside you.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

You are joking. Describing the distinguishing features of this latest loolaa would not be gossip but if he’s not white with blue eyes would unleash the howls of protest from the permanently offended army stalking the country at the moment.

No, I'm not joking. If the Gardai have any other details, then there's a reason they haven't released them.
If they have any that is

walshb

At 7.30 in darkness it is probably a lot less busy than other roads/areas...

pjohnson

Impressive. Already got both "mansplaining" AND starting on the "PC loons" script.

Very good Current Affairs.

Be right back

The 2020s wrote: »

What, in this weather? You would think they’d stand out, going around in a t-shirt in winter. I’m assuming she gave other details that they can use to narrow down the attacker. I mean, there’s probably a queue of homeless people in t-shirts admitting it now, hoping to get a bed for the night.

Not if he just got out of a car. Be different if he was on foot. Hope he's found soon.

wiggle16

Working class heroes wrote: »

Why is everyone jumping on this post? I think it’s bang on.

I think so too.

I do think as well though that a point like that is better made with a bit more civility. If you go on the attack, people get defensive. If you tell men they are mansplaining, a wall will go up, which is understandable. I hate the word, I think it's a cheap way to try to shut someone else up and the sign of a person who can't articulate themselves.

I think it's a misunderstanding as well to say that men get something out of it or like to feel magnanimous when they say "careful, ladies". I don't think that's true. I think that we don't get how condescending it is and how it can miss the point, but we don't get a sense of power from it or whatever.

walshb

wiggle16 wrote: »

I think so too.

I do think as well though that a point like that is better made with a bit more civility. If you go on the attack, people get defensive. If you tell men they are mansplaining, a wall will go up, which is understandable. I hate the word, I think it's a cheap way to try to shut someone else up and the sign of a person who can't articulate themselves.

I think it's a misunderstanding as well to say that men get something out of it or like to feel magnanimous when they say "careful, ladies". I don't think that's true. I think that we don't get how condescending it is and how it can miss the point, but we don't get a sense of power from it or whatever.

This is how you articulate your response..

Jaysus, surely we are all on the same team here, gender aside...

The poster took an OTT offense to my post, and in her urgency to reply, it came across as an attack, an unjustified one.

Atlantic Dawn

Was the attacker, white, black, asian, fat, tall, slim, no actual decsription beyond what they were wearing, we could be looking for a 4 ft or 6.5 foot man who is thin as a twig or fat as a fool. Who decides to release this thrash to the media, they are worse for publishing it.

wiggle16

walshb wrote: »

Good points.

But it’s all relative..

The Navan Road, for example...in comparison to where this lady was attacked, would be a far riskier place for a perp to attempt this...

Absolutely. But why not drive 40 seconds down the road and turn at the park gate and wait in there for someone to come along? In all honesty if this had happened in the park the outcome might have been very different, he would probably not have given up when he did.

Fair f#cks to the lady for fighting back like she did. He picked the wrong woman anyway.

I'm only speculating. But it strikes me that the man who did this was either
- profoundly stupid and brazen
- had a specific reason to target this particular lady
- thought she was his "type" in some way and just had to have her then and there.

boombang

I find it baffling how a reaction to a scary event (irrespective of age/gender) can spiral into a hostile "debate" so quickly.

boombang

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Was the attacker, white, black, asian, fat, tall, slim, no actual decsription beyond what they were wearing, we could be looking for a 4 ft or 6.5 foot man who is thin as a twig or fat as a fool. Who decides to release this thrash to the media, they are worse for publishing it.

The (vague) details about the car are and his clothes are fit to print, but not anything about the man himself?

Prominent_Dawg

eviltwin wrote: »

It reminded me of the Jastine Valdez abduction and we know how that ended. I hope CCTV in the area is good enough to get an ID, it's scary to think something like this can happen. That area is well populated and you would imagine fairly busy at that time of morning.

I was thinking the same thing, thought it was one of the most heart breaking stories ever!

alastair

splinter65 wrote: »

You are joking. Describing the distinguishing features of this latest loolaa would not be gossip but if he’s not white with blue eyes would unleash the howls of protest from the permanently offended army stalking the country at the moment.

Great deal of projection evident here.

wiggle16

wiggle16 wrote: »

If you tell men they are mansplaining, a wall will go up, which is understandable.

And if you tell women, after an attack like this, they need to be (quote) "responsible", that's going to get backs up too. It implies that without someone like him to tell us to be responsible, women are irresponsible. And I believe that tinychancer felt it implies that perhaps the victim in this instance was behaving irresponsibly in some way.

Working class heroes

wiggle16 wrote: »

I think so too.

I do think as well though that a point like that is better made with a bit more civility. If you go on the attack, people get defensive. If you tell men they are mansplaining, a wall will go up, which is understandable. I hate the word, I think it's a cheap way to try to shut someone else up and the sign of a person who can't articulate themselves.

I think it's a misunderstanding as well to say that men get something out of it or like to feel magnanimous when they say "careful, ladies". I don't think that's true. I think that we don't get how condescending it is and how it can miss the point, but we don't get a sense of power from it or whatever.

Fair enough, but I think the post/poster she was responding too might explain the “attacking” tone of the post.

On someone advising women “to be careful “ well, as I mentioned previously, subtle trolling.

alastair

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Was the attacker, white, black, asian, fat, tall, slim, no actual decsription beyond what they were wearing, we could be looking for a 4 ft or 6.5 foot man who is thin as a twig or fat as a fool. Who decides to release this thrash to the media, they are worse for publishing it.

Have you considered that they may not want you looking for anyone? That they have some sort of sequential process for this kind of thing?

Working class heroes

Working class heroes wrote: »

On someone advising women “to be careful “ well, as I mentioned previously, subtle trolling.

It's not the careful bit that bothered me but the "be responsible". I find that very patronising.

strandroad

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's not the careful bit that bothered me but the "be responsible". I find that very patronising.

Exactly. People go to work at 7 or 8am, what are we supposed to do instead? Be responsible how?
Unhelpful and patronising.