Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

:.

You'd gleefully watch an innocent man sent to jail because a woman lied and claimed he did something he most definitely did not. Thanks Andy, you've just provided all the evidence the other poster was looking for.

Unfortunately for you, this "evidence" only exists in your twisted imagination, as I never said anything close to that.

But maybe Jim will provide more details on the pro feminist agenda he mentioned?

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Unfortunately for you, this "evidence" only exists in your twisted imagination, as I never said anything close to that.

But maybe Jim will provide more details on the pro feminist agenda he mentioned?

Prove me wrong. Lay your opinion out on the table. You just can't bring yourself to saying it can you?

Any reasonable person not blinded by an agenda would take a few moments to "read up" on the story and form a basic opinion and would have the courage to be share that opinion. But because you know it is morally reprehensible to condemn an innocent man, you choose to throw stones from the ditch instead.

If any person is content to watch a man go to jail because a woman has told a proven lie, then that person is a disgusting cretin. And i'm the one with a twisted imagination? :pac::pac::pac::pac:

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

Prove me wrong. Lay your opinion out on the table. You just can't bring yourself to saying it can you?

So, as I suspected, it was an attempt to put words into my mouth to trigger me into some kind of denial.

I don't need to prove you wrong. I've no interest in proving you wrong. I didn't say that you were wrong in your judgement on this case.

My words on this issue are quite clear. It might surprise you to know that I might not be your enemy here.

Your cause for justice for Fox is not well served by unsubstantiated claims of a "pro feminist agenda". It makes it look like some of the lads just can't get their heads around the idea of a woman holding a powerful position.

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So, as I suspected, it was an attempt to put words into my mouth to trigger me into some kind of denial.

I don't need to prove you wrong. I've no interest in proving you wrong. I didn't say that you were wrong in your judgement on this case.

My words on this issue are quite clear. It might surprise you to know that I might not be your enemy here.

Your cause for justice for Fox is not well served by unsubstantiated claims of a "pro feminist agenda". It makes it look like some of the lads just can't get their heads around the idea of a woman holding a powerful position.

Actually i'm trying to get you to use your own words. You have consistently avoided declaring your view on the case. You are not being asked to read a 500 page court document. The story is has been broken down into a few short paragraphs and you say you haven't read it, so I posted the link for you. Your refusal to engage on the primary content of the thread while focusing on comments of feminist agendas is very telling.

FWIW, I personally couldn't care less what sex the DPP is. But I do think she is ill equipped for the role. To let the Sil Fox case go to court when the evidence was crystal clear is negligence at best, criminally malicious at worst. I don't speak for the other poster, but I would assume the pro feminist aganda is routed against that backdrop. A woman made a false accusation. Evidence was provided which shows the accused man was unquestionably innocent and the DPP went ahead and lay down charges. If she presses charges on such a case, is she malicious, or incompetent?

The DPP has gone on record to say she will be increasing the number of convictions for sex crimes. She set up a specialised unit for sexual offences unit. She wants longer sentences for sexual offences and I can't find the article, but she supported scrapping custodial sentences for women. The emphasis of her term to date has been on sexual crimes, heinous as they are, they have received more attention than everything else. This would certainly fit the narrative for pro-feminist agenda. When we start to see these liars being named and put behind bars, then we will have a fairer system.

I don't consider anyone my enemy in here, but I do find it very questionable when a poster takes aim at something someone else has said without declaring their own opinion on the matter. You've been asked a number of times now and you continue to evade the question by deflection. Saying "for the sake of argument, let's say you're right" or anything to that effect is a cop-out and you know it.

silver2020

...Ghost... wrote: »

FWIW, I personally couldn't care less what sex the DPP is. But I do think she is ill equipped for the role. To let the Sil Fox case go to court when the evidence was crystal clear is negligence at best, criminally malicious at worst. I don't speak for the other poster, but I would assume the pro feminist aganda is routed against that backdrop. A woman made a false accusation. Evidence was provided which shows the accused man was unquestionably innocent and the DPP went ahead and lay down charges. If she presses charges on such a case, is she malicious, or incompetent?

.

The DPP issues proceedings based on the evidence a garda supplies.

Some incompetent / malicious Gardai are known not to investigate the other side of the story. They will avoid checking the truth in the hope that something else comes out.

Its incompetence at the best, maliciousness/corruption would be my thinking.


And there are far too many similar cases out there. Some went to court and some got dropped when it was as obvious as the day was long that there was no case to answer.

In all cases the innocent party has suffered humiliation / investigation and it is highly unlikely any of the incompetent / malicious gardai had any action taken against them, hence it is so important for Sil Fox to see this case through

Mike Murdock

...Ghost... wrote: »

Actually i'm trying to get you to use your own words. You have consistently avoided declaring your view on the case. You are not being asked to read a 500 page court document. The story is has been broken down into a few short paragraphs and you say you haven't read it, so I posted the link for you. Your refusal to engage on the primary content of the thread while focusing on comments of feminist agendas is very telling.

FWIW, I personally couldn't care less what sex the DPP is. But I do think she is ill equipped for the role. To let the Sil Fox case go to court when the evidence was crystal clear is negligence at best, criminally malicious at worst. I don't speak for the other poster, but I would assume the pro feminist aganda is routed against that backdrop. A woman made a false accusation. Evidence was provided which shows the accused man was unquestionably innocent and the DPP went ahead and lay down charges. If she presses charges on such a case, is she malicious, or incompetent?

The DPP has gone on record to say she will be increasing the number of convictions for sex crimes. She set up a specialised unit for sexual offences unit. She wants longer sentences for sexual offences and I can't find the article, but she supported scrapping custodial sentences for women. The emphasis of her term to date has been on sexual crimes, heinous as they are, they have received more attention than everything else. This would certainly fit the narrative for pro-feminist agenda. When we start to see these liars being named and put behind bars, then we will have a fairer system.

I don't consider anyone my enemy in here, but I do find it very questionable when a poster takes aim at something someone else has said without declaring their own opinion on the matter. You've been asked a number of times now and you continue to evade the question by deflection. Saying "for the sake of argument, let's say you're right" or anything to that effect is a cop-out and you know it.

So Alison Saunders 2.0

That worked out well for the CPS in the UK...

...Ghost...

silver2020 wrote: »

The DPP issues proceedings based on the evidence a garda supplies.

Some incompetent / malicious Gardai are known not to investigate the other side of the story. They will avoid checking the truth in the hope that something else comes out.

Its incompetence at the best, maliciousness/corruption would be my thinking.


And there are far too many similar cases out there. Some went to court and some got dropped when it was as obvious as the day was long that there was no case to answer.

In all cases the innocent party has suffered humiliation / investigation and it is highly unlikely any of the incompetent / malicious gardai had any action taken against them, hence it is so important for Sil Fox to see this case through

Very much in agreement with you on those points. I would add that the DPP would have had the CCTV evidence at their disposal and decided to push forward regardless. With CCTV evidence available and a lack of descriptive evidence surrounding said evidence, the DPP was just as incompetent and/or malicious as the investigating Gardaí.

They comprehensively failed in their duties and the result is another life ruined, not to mention his family. The system needs to change. The authorities need to be accountable and the vermin that make these false accusations must be named and charged. They should be jailed and forced to pay compensation to the victim. Even this will not be enough to remove the forever stain on the life of the victim. There are always complete idiots who would still believe the lies because the truth does not fit their narrative/agenda as seen on this thread and elsewhere.

osarusan

...Ghost... wrote: »

V the DPP was just as incompetent and/or malicious as the investigating Gardaí.

Certainly, the DPP decision to proceed with the prosecution based on the evidence seems incompetent at best.


But has there been evidence on this thread that the Gardai were also incompetent/malicious?

...Ghost...

Mike Murdock wrote: »

So Alison Saunders 2.0

That worked out well for the CPS in the UK...

:pac:
I suppose we will find out in due course. Not surprising when policy is for Gardaí to believe the complainant and not to ask any questions which might discredit the complainants story. In other words....don't investigate and don't act with impartiality. Arrest the accused and assume he is guilty. Such a wonderful system we have.

I personally know of a case that the DPP decided not to prosecute within a few months of the accused being arrested for questioning. I believe the complainants story did not match up with the evidence. But the accused was not told by the Gardaí or the DPP of the decision until he called to have his property returned 3 years later. The complainant was duly notified, but the attitude seems to have been "fuk the accused".

There is nothing funny about this story.
But the funny thing about this thread is that there are posters here who seem to think that gardai & solicitors for the state would somehow be happy about people wasting their time.

False accusers also affect investigators, courts, state solicitors etc etc.
To think that somehow these people enjoy having their time and efforts wasted is just laughable!

...Ghost...

osarusan wrote: »

Certainly, the DPP decision to proceed with the prosecution based on the evidence seems incompetent at best.


But has there been evidence on this thread that the Gardai were also incompetent/malicious?

All the evidence gathered had to be turned over to the DPP with a recommendation. So that means the Gardaí and the DPP both had access to the most critical piece of evidence. There can be only two judgements; incompetence or maliciousness.

The Gardaí will cry and say they are under-resourced, but they are content to spend months of every year in the courts to give evidence on cases which should never have been sent there in the first place. The DPP probably just went ahead with the recommendation to prosecute and never bothered reviewing the CCTV. They too will claim to be under-resourced and perhaps they are. However, there is no excuse for prosecuting a case which is so blatantly destined to be thrown out by the Judge without any consideration for the accused. That is malicious.

osarusan

...Ghost... wrote: »

All the evidence gathered had to be turned over to the DPP with a recommendation. So that means the Gardaí and the DPP both had access to the most critical piece of evidence. There can be only two judgements; incompetence or maliciousness.

You know for a fact that in this case, the Gardai turned over the evidence to the DPP and also made a recommendation that the prosecution proceed based on that evidence?

...Ghost...

bubblypop wrote: »

There is nothing funny about this story.
But the funny thing about this thread is that there are posters here who seem to think that gardai & solicitors for the state would somehow be happy about people wasting their time.

False accusers also affect investigators, courts, state solicitors etc etc.
To think that somehow these people enjoy having their time and efforts wasted is just laughable!

Happy about people wasting their time? I would think not. However, there is a lack of appetite to pursue those who have made false accusations of a serious nature. The identities of the accusers is sacred while the accused is dragged through the filth. The Gardaí are told to believe the accusers story which automatically stamps a guilty sign on the accused. If this were untrue, those accused would not be arrested so often with no other evidence than the word of the accuser.

I am sure not all cases are like this and man a time the accuser is given stern warning by the Gardaí when a complaint is very obviously false and malicious.

...Ghost...

osarusan wrote: »

You know for a fact that in this case, the Gardai turned over the evidence to the DPP and also made a recommendation that the prosecution proceed?

All the facts are not publicly available. That said, the investigating officer will always give their recommendation in a file and are required to submit ALL evidence....which would include the CCTV footage whether reviewed or not.

If by some chance the Gardaí did not obtain this footage or forward it to the DPP, what does that tell you?

osarusan

...Ghost... wrote: »

All the facts are not publicly available. That said, the investigating officer will always give their recommendation in a file and are required to submit ALL evidence....which would include the CCTV footage whether reviewed or not.

If by some chance the Gardaí did not obtain this footage or forward it to the DPP, what does that tell you?

Seeing as how you don't know what recommendation the Gardai did or did not make, or what evidence they did or did not collect and review, I'm not really seeing how you can be so definite that the Gardai were also either malicious or incompetent.

UcdLaw22

...Ghost... wrote: »

Actually i'm trying to get you to use your own words. You have consistently avoided declaring your view on the case. You are not being asked to read a 500 page court document. The story is has been broken down into a few short paragraphs and you say you haven't read it, so I posted the link for you. Your refusal to engage on the primary content of the thread while focusing on comments of feminist agendas is very telling.

FWIW, I personally couldn't care less what sex the DPP is. But I do think she is ill equipped for the role. To let the Sil Fox case go to court when the evidence was crystal clear is negligence at best, criminally malicious at worst. I don't speak for the other poster, but I would assume the pro feminist aganda is routed against that backdrop. A woman made a false accusation. Evidence was provided which shows the accused man was unquestionably innocent and the DPP went ahead and lay down charges. If she presses charges on such a case, is she malicious, or incompetent?

The DPP has gone on record to say she will be increasing the number of convictions for sex crimes. She set up a specialised unit for sexual offences unit. She wants longer sentences for sexual offences and I can't find the article, but she supported scrapping custodial sentences for women. The emphasis of her term to date has been on sexual crimes, heinous as they are, they have received more attention than everything else. This would certainly fit the narrative for pro-feminist agenda. When we start to see these liars being named and put behind bars, then we will have a fairer system.

I don't consider anyone my enemy in here, but I do find it very questionable when a poster takes aim at something someone else has said without declaring their own opinion on the matter. You've been asked a number of times now and you continue to evade the question by deflection. Saying "for the sake of argument, let's say you're right" or anything to that effect is a cop-out and you know it.

Claire Loftus has not said that she will be increasing convictions for sexual offences. I think you may be confusing her statement that an office dedicated to sexual offences should be established in response to the rise of sexual offences reported to the gardaí.

I fail to see how setting up such a unit is pro feminist propaganda? It's not going to magic up more prosecutions save to the extent that more resources may result in better evidence gathering/reviewing - its purpose is to have more staff who are better trained to deal with sexual offences complaints as well as providing support for the staff dealing with such complaints. If anything, Sil Fox would most likely have benefitted from a unit that is specifically trained to deal with sexual offences rather than whoever the individual prosecutor assigned to reviewing his case was.

Claire Loftus has been DPP since 2011. In 2018, of the 638 requests for reasons not to prosecute, 40% related to complaints of sexual offences. Only 14% of sexual offences reported to the gardaí will ever make it to court. That to me doesn't sound like someone whose term has been dedicated to snagging alleged sexual offenders at whatever the cost.

There has been a slight increase in prosecutions for sexual offences this year but that is largely attributable to a backlog due to Covid (many of these prosecutions relate to 2019 complaints).

I also highly doubt that she has stated that there should be only non custodial sentences for women - that would be an outrage and rightly so. She has no role in sentencing. A quick google shows no results for such a statement - do you have any source for that? She should probably be criticised for things she has actually done or said.

Rubberchikken

I remember this case and the lack of evidence and the inexplicable reason for the Dpp to bring it to court.

Only for the cctv showing what occurred this man and his reputation would have been destroyed by a woman with absolutely no morals.

...Ghost...

osarusan wrote: »

Seeing as how you don't know what recommendation the Gardai did or did not make, or what evidence they did or did not collect and review, I'm not really seeing how you can be so definite that the Gardai were also either malicious or incompetent.

Well it's really quite simple actually.
If the Gardaí did not collect the CCTV footage and review it, they were incompetent.
If the Gardaí did collect the CCTV footage and failed to review it, they were incompetent and negligent.
If the Gardai did collect the CCTV footage and reviewed it and sent a file to the DPP with a recommendation not to prosecute, they did their job in that regard and it is the DPP who shoulder the blame from that point on.
If the Gardai did collect the CCTV footage and reviewed it and sent a file to the DPP with a recommendation to prosecute, they were malicious.

If you have anything to add to that, you are most welcome. There is no certainty, but there aren't many scenarios to consider and most of them point to incompetence at investigation stage which ought to have been caught by the DPP if they did their job properly and reviewed the footage.

...Ghost...

UcdLaw22 wrote: »

Claire Loftus has not said that she will be increasing convictions for sexual offences. I think you may be confusing her statement that an office dedicated to sexual offences should be established in response to the rise of sexual offences reported to the gardaí.

I fail to see how setting up such a unit is pro feminist propaganda? It's not going to magic up more prosecutions save to the extent that more resources may result in better evidence gathering/reviewing - it's purpose is to have more staff who are better trained to deal with sexual offences complaints as well as providing support for the staff dealing with such complaints. If anything, Sil Fox would most likely have benefitted from a unit that is specifically trained to deal with sexual offences rather than whoever the individual prosecutor assigned to reviewing his case was.

Claire Loftus has been DPP since 2011. In 2018, of the 638 requests for reasons not to prosecute, 40% related to complaints of sexual offences. Only 14% of sexual offences reported to the gardaí will ever make it to court. That to me doesn't sound like someone whose term has been dedicated to snagging alleged sexual offenders at whatever the cost.

There has been a slight increase in prosecutions for sexual offences this year but that is largely attributable to a backlog due to Covid (many of these prosecutions relate to 2019 complaints).

I also highly doubt that she has stated that there should be only non custodial sentences for women - that would be an outrage and rightly so. She has no role in sentencing. A quick google shows no results for such a statement - do you have any source for that? She should probably be criticised for things she has actually done or said.

Sil Fox would have indeed benefitted from a special unit designed to investigate sexual crimes. Moreso if his accuser had reason to fear she would have risked being prosecuted herself for making such a claim.

14% is a relatively low number. I know the bar is high for prosecuting a sex crime, but if 86% are not making it to court, there must be a decent chunk of those which are false allegations.

My other post said I could not find the article in relation to dropping custodial sentences for women. I do recall it being related to a proposal Senator Ivana Bacik had put forward citing that putting women in prison was bad for society or some such nonsense. The proposal received support from Loftus according to the article which was in the times, or the indo, it was a few years ago.

osarusan

...Ghost... wrote: »

Well it's really quite simple actually.
If the Gardaí did not collect the CCTV footage and review it, they were incompetent.
If the Gardaí did collect the CCTV footage and failed to review it, they were incompetent and negligent.
If the Gardai did collect the CCTV footage and reviewed it and sent a file to the DPP with a recommendation not to prosecute, they did their job in that regard and it is the DPP who shoulder the blame from that point on.
If the Gardai did collect the CCTV footage and reviewed it and sent a file to the DPP with a recommendation to prosecute, they were malicious.

I don't have any disagreement with that.

But my point is your third hypothetical can't be discounted, so I think stating as fact that the Gardai were either incompetent or malicious is taking things too far.

Not to mention ironic in a thread about somebody being accused of something without evidence to support the accusation.

...Ghost...

osarusan wrote: »

I don't have any disagreement with that.

But my point is your third hypothetical can't be discounted, so I think stating as fact that the Gardai were either incompetent or malicious is taking things too far.

Not to mention ironic in a thread about somebody being accused of something without evidence to support the accusation.

I haven't discounted any possibilities and I have stated only my reasoned beliefs on here, none of which affect any individual person or the organisations they represent. Nobody is being put on trial and the words of a boardsie won't gain any traction outside of this thread. Very different is the case Sil Fox endured and continues to survive.

Here's an article which includes some details of the case on the day. Astonishing that even when faced with the CCTV footage, the woman insisted her account was true.

The article has a quote from her friends who was there on the night. One of her friends told the court she understood the complainant had said he would have touched her vagina if she had not been “carrying weight”.
I think that says it all really. She accused Fox of what she wanted him to do. At least that's my understanding of it.

UcdLaw22

...Ghost... wrote: »

Sil Fox would have indeed benefitted from a special unit designed to investigate sexual crimes. Moreso if his accuser had reason to fear she would have risked being prosecuted herself for making such a claim.

14% is a relatively low number. I know the bar is high for prosecuting a sex crime, but if 86% are not making it to court, there must be a decent chunk of those which are false allegations.

My other post said I could not find the article in relation to dropping custodial sentences for women. I do recall it being related to a proposal Senator Ivana Bacik had put forward citing that putting women in prison was bad for society or some such nonsense. The proposal received support from Loftus according to the article which was in the times, or the indo, it was a few years ago.

If there are no false accusation cases getting to court does that also mean there just aren't any false accusations?

The reasons why most sexual assault/rape cases don't make it to court is because of the unique nature of the crime. In most cases sexual activity is not disputed but consent is. There are no witnesses. It is solely the complainant's word against the accused. In cases involving sexual activity with a child, (where consent obviously isn't an issue) it can also be difficult to get evidence from very young children. It is also (with the exception of extremely violent attacks) essentially impossible to tell apart "injuries" that result from consensual sex versus a rape.

The DPP may believe a complainant but, in the face of insufficient evidence, consider that it is highly unlikely a jury would found find an accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  The DPP (like any prosecutorial office) will generally not want to waste public resources to prosecute a case that has no chance of a conviction, and, perhaps more cynically, that will lower its conviction success rate.

Logically, if it was accepted and there was evidence that most sexual offence claims were false then there would be no damage to someone accused of the crime. If someone was acquitted, people would think "another man falsely accused". That isn't the case though. Even if someone is acquitted, it follows them like a stain e.g. the Belfast case.

Why is that the case? Probably because it is largely acknowledged that genuine rape cases are extremely difficult to prosecute. Meaning that a doubt remains even after acquittal and also in the case of false allegations.

Sexual offences seem to be constantly thrown into the gender wars debate but just like any other crime, there are not more false accusations than actual occurrences. I agree however, that there should be absolutely be consequences for those who make false accusations. 

I also looked up Senator Ivana Bacik's statement that there should be a review every time a woman is imprisoned. I agree with you that that is ridiculous. However, there is no mention of Claire Loftus having ever supported that and I would suggest that doing so would nearly amount to misconduct of her office taking into the account that one of the roles of the DPP is to appeal undue leniency. I think you may be confusing her with another woman you dislike. For example, a google search shows that the office of the DPP appealed the sentences of two women in 2013 and 2018 for neglect of their children for undue leniency. They had been given suspended sentences and the DPP was of the view they should have been given custodial sentences. Sounds like she isn't against cusotidal sentences for women to me?

If the article was from a few years ago, it should be pretty easily found online. In the absence of same, I am going to say that it never happened.

...Ghost...

UcdLaw22 wrote: »

Snip

I also looked up Senator Ivana Bacik's statement that there should be a review every time a woman is imprisoned. I agree with you that that is ridiculous. However, there is no mention of Claire Loftus having ever supported that and I would suggest that doing so would nearly amount to misconduct of her office taking into the account that one of the roles of the DPP is to appeal undue leniency. I think you may be confusing her with another woman you dislike. For example, a google search shows that the office of the DPP appealed the sentences of two women in 2013 and 2018 for neglect of their children for undue leniency. They had been given suspended sentences and the DPP was of the view they should have been given custodial sentences. Sounds like she isn't against cusotidal sentences for women to me?

If the article was from a few years ago, it should be pretty easily found online. In the absence of same, I am going to say that it never happened.

In the absence of a link, I understand your move to dismiss my statement, but although I am uncertain of the exact circumstances and timeline, I am certain Loftus showed support. Bacik has peddled her non-custodial sentences for women on more than one occasion, so it's out there and I will try find the article if I remember more details. But here's some light news to support the connection. Not proof of what I said, but a close connection.

Loftus may have stepped in to appeal a leniency on the occasion you mentioned, but there are plenty of instances where no appeal was made. Here's a recent enough one where a 4 year old boy was seriously assaulted, but the fully suspended sentence was not appealed.

Oh, I forgot to add, only the mother got her sentence fully suspended while the father got jail time.

UcdLaw22

...Ghost... wrote: »

In the absence of a link, I understand your move to dismiss my statement, but although I am uncertain of the exact circumstances and timeline, I am certain Loftus showed support. Bacik has peddled her non-custodial sentences for women on more than one occasion, so it's out there and I will try find the article if I remember more details. But here's some light news to support the connection. Not proof of what I said, but a close connection.

Loftus may have stepped in to appeal a leniency on the occasion you mentioned, but there are plenty of instances where no appeal was made. Here's a recent enough one where a 4 year old boy was seriously assaulted, but the fully suspended sentence was not appealed.

Oh, I forgot to add, only the mother got her sentence fully suspended while the father got jail time.

I don't think that women who are invited and happen to attend the same university conference automatically agree with each other, especially when Bacik is a professor at Trinity herself and would obviously be at attendance at such an event.

My point was just to show that if she does appeal undue leniency for women she isn't against custodial sentences for them. I absolutely accept that there are numerous cases where unduly lenient sentences were handed down that would warrant appeals. Unfortunately, again due to resources, the DPP has to pick and choose. I agree they don't always prioritise the right ones. Every DPP has been subject to criticism for not appealing certain cases (both here and in the UK). There is actually a good Irish Times article from 2003 on James Hamilton speaking at a conference on the difficulty of appealing against the leniency of sentences (don't think I can link).

I am not sure what the reasoning of the difference in sentencing was (could easily have been due to gender bias) - but that was a decision of the judge not the DPP. The man got 7 years suspended of the 10 year sentence he received. The Supreme Court noted that both sentences were completely out of line with sentencing guidelines however the DPP didn't appeal either. So yes she didn't appeal that woman's sentence. She also didn't appeal the man's. From memory the DPP also received criticism for not appealing the sentence of a man who had continually raped his wife over a number of years. The DPP can only appeal so many cases. If anything it's more an issue with judges and sentencing guidelines. Gender bias in judges' sentencing is another issue.

jimwallace197

...Ghost... wrote: »

In the absence of a link, I understand your move to dismiss my statement, but although I am uncertain of the exact circumstances and timeline, I am certain Loftus showed support. Bacik has peddled her non-custodial sentences for women on more than one occasion, so it's out there and I will try find the article if I remember more details. But here's some light news to support the connection. Not proof of what I said, but a close connection.

Loftus may have stepped in to appeal a leniency on the occasion you mentioned, but there are plenty of instances where no appeal was made. Here's a recent enough one where a 4 year old boy was seriously assaulted, but the fully suspended sentence was not appealed.

Oh, I forgot to add, only the mother got her sentence fully suspended while the father got jail time.

I can only imagine that she would have been protesting vigorously if a male or father was given a similar suspended sentence.

I do frequently see her objecting to the leniency of a sentence when a male is involved though especially in relation to a supposed rape crime.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-jailed-for-raping-wife-has-sentence-increased-1.4051255

This is one of them, increased the sentence on appeal even though his wife didnt want him to go to jail in the first place.

Another issue is Isobel Kennedy, another feminist no doubt happy to go along with the current DPP's narrative.

Served as a judge on the high court from 2015-2018, very quickly & only promoted to the court of appeal as a result of gender quotas.

She is now part of the first court with a gender balanced number of judges although again she is again extremely biased in her nature and has been promoted primarily because of this ridiculous gender quotas argument.

...Ghost...

UcdLaw22 wrote: »

I don't think that women who are invited and happen to attend the same university conference automatically agree with each other, especially when Bacik is a professor at Trinity herself and would obviously be at attendance at such an event.

My point was just to show that if she does appeal undue leniency for women she isn't against custodial sentences for them. I absolutely accept that there are numerous cases where unduly lenient sentences were handed down that would warrant appeals. Unfortunately, again due to resources, the DPP has to pick and choose. I agree they don't always prioritise the right ones. Every DPP has been subject to criticism for not appealing certain cases (both here and in the UK). There is actually a good Irish Times article from 2003 on James Hamilton speaking at a conference on the difficulty of appealing against the leniency of sentences (don't think I can link).

I am not sure what the reasoning of the difference in sentencing was (could easily have been due to gender bias) - but that was a decision of the judge not the DPP. The man got 7 years suspended of the 10 year sentence he received. The Supreme Court noted that both sentences were completely out of line with sentencing guidelines however the DPP didn't appeal either. So yes she didn't appeal that woman's sentence. She also didn't appeal the man's. From memory the DPP also received criticism for not appealing the sentence of a man who had continually raped his wife over a number of years. The DPP can only appeal so many cases. If anything it's more an issue with judges and sentencing guidelines. Gender bias in judges' sentencing is another issue.

Some fair points, some of which I wholly agree with. Though Bacik would hardly miss an opportunity to promote her agenda, whether Loftus and her agree or not, especially in such a small group of successful women.

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

I can only imagine that she would have been protesting vigorously if a male or father was given a similar suspended sentence.

I do frequently see her objecting to the leniency of a sentence when a male is involved though especially in relation to a supposed rape crime.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/man-jailed-for-raping-wife-has-sentence-increased-1.4051255

This is one of them, increased the sentence on appeal even though his wife didnt want him to go to jail in the first place.

Another issue is Isobel Kennedy, another feminist no doubt happy to go along with the current DPP's narrative.

Served as a judge on the high court from 2015-2018, very quickly & only promoted to the court of appeal as a result of gender quotas.

She is now part of the first court with a gender balanced number of judges although again she is again extremely biased in her nature and has been promoted primarily because of this ridiculous gender quotas argument.

There are no gender quotas for judges.

jimwallace197

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are no gender quotas for judges.

No gender quotas but you are naive in the extreme if you dont think equal genders in the courts, appeal to the current prevailing feminist narrative that is taking place in our society.

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

No gender quotas but you are naive in the extreme if you dont think equal genders in the courts, appeal to the current prevailing feminist narrative that is taking place in our society.

So when you said "promoted due to gender quotas" you meant something else entirely?

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So when you said "promoted due to gender quotas" you meant something else entirely?

Do you have an opinion on gender quotas?