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

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

Do you have an opinion on gender quotas?

Yes, I have the opinion that there are no gender quotas for judges in Ireland.

jimwallace197

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I have the opinion that there are no gender quotas for judges in Ireland.

Yes, of course, because you are the type of person that comes on message boards in Ireland arguing that there is no feminist agenda when men are frequently sent down for crimes of a similar respect to women for alot longer, the type of person that laughs at a man having his life ruined for a false accusation by a psychopath & the type of person that ignores blatant evidence of a woman lying & trying to ruin a mans life out of pure maliciousness.

You are beneath contempt

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I have the opinion that there are no gender quotas for judges in Ireland.

Let me be more specific, as you appear to have misunderstood what was a simple question. Perhaps I was being too general and that resulted in you answering a question I hadn't asked.

Do you have an opinion on gender quotas for employment in any private company in Ireland?

If no opinion, that's fine. If you agree or disagree with gender quotas, I would love to read about your opinion, if you have one.

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Yes, of course, because you are the type of person that comes on message boards in Ireland arguing that there is no feminist agenda when men are frequently sent down for crimes of a similar respect to women for alot longer, the type of person that laughs at a man having his life ruined for a false accusation by a psychopath & the type of person that ignores blatant evidence of a woman lying & trying to ruin a mans life out of pure maliciousness.

You are beneath contempt

Is there any actual evidence behind any of your claims Jim, other than your own exaggerated victimhood?

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

Let me be more specific, as you appear to have misunderstood what was a simple question. Perhaps I was being too general and that resulted in you answering a question I hadn't asked.

Do you have an opinion on gender quotas for employment in any private company in Ireland?

If no opinion, that's fine. If you agree or disagree with gender quotas, I would love to read about your opinion, if you have one.

Can you point to any specific examples of such quotas for me to review please?

jimwallace197

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is there any actual evidence behind any of your claims Jim, other than your own exaggerated victimhood?

Is it possible to meet you in person to show you the real evidence. I live in Dublin 3 so let me know when you are here, yah?

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Is it possible to meet you in person to show you the real evidence. I live in Dublin 3 so let me know when you are here, yah?

Would you not be better off posting the evidence here where you would reach a much wider audience?

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Can you point to any specific examples of such quotas for me to review please?

I could, but that would be beyond the scope of the question. It's ok, I understand if you are unable to engage with the question. It can be a difficult one for some people to understand and can cause serious side effects including, but not limited to:

* Flag waving.
* Hair colour change to blue, or purple.
* An urgent need to record motorists while cycling.
* A desire to shout at non-vegans.
* Loss of testosterone.
* Gender confusion.
* Inability to answer questions if answer goes against preferred narrative.
* Uncontrollable screaming at Donald Trump posters.

It's ok dude. Relaxe, you don't have to risk it.

...Ghost...

silver2020 wrote: »

christ - mrajr wading in with two feet and thrown a thread way way off topic. just surprised he hasn't brought cycling rights into it yet

:pac::pac: I suspected he was one of those "cyclists v motorists" types. I just saw this now. Probably has 2 go-pros on his helmet

cokeiscrap

Thankfully Sil Fox, an innocent man was cleared of any wrongdoing.
But at least he got a chance to prove his innocence in a court of law.
Some people don't get that chance and have their lives ruined without any evidence against them.


Look up workplacerelations.ie and when you click on find a decision type in beverage and search. Result is from 19th Oct 2020

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

I could, but that would be beyond the scope of the question. It's ok, I understand if you are unable to engage with the question. It can be a difficult one for some people to understand and can cause serious side effects including, but not limited to:

* Flag waving.
* Hair colour change to blue, or purple.
* An urgent need to record motorists while cycling.
* A desire to shout at non-vegans.
* Loss of testosterone.
* Gender confusion.
* Inability to answer questions if answer goes against preferred narrative.
* Uncontrollable screaming at Donald Trump posters.

It's ok dude. Relaxe, you don't have to risk it.

There are no gender quotas for employment in any private company here.

It's like asking me if I believe in Santa?

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

How does it feel to destroy mens lives with your lies and false accusations but when an educated business owner wants to meet you, you get scared,

Really, come and meet me. We will meet each other. Back up the courage of your convictions.

This is a discussion board Jim, not a dating app.

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are no gender quotas for employment in any private company here.

OK, I think we may be getting closer, so I'll go again. I did not say we had gender quotas here for employment (not officially anyway). I asked you...

Do you have an opinion on gender quotas for employment in any private company in Ireland?

But we can try general again if you prefer and cast the net to cover all other western countries.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's like asking me if I believe in Santa?

Is it really?

Gender quotas are very real even though they are not legally binding in Irish law. They're very real in Irish politics, not to mention the EC pushing for gender quotas in commissioner roles.

I'm hoping you might now be able to give an opinion on gender quotas. But hey, if you need to read up on it, I get it.

BattleCorp

cokeiscrap wrote: »

Look up workplacerelations.ie and when you click on find a decision type in beverage and search. Result is from 19th Oct 2020

I read that case above. What has that got to do with Sil Fox or what happened to him?

Are you trying to say there was no evidence against the person in the case above?

There was evidence. The testimony of the lady in question is evidence. The accused had ample opportunity to give his own evidence but decided against doing so.

I agree with the decision in the WRC. The decision may have been very different had he given evidence (testimony) to counter what the lady said.

cokeiscrap

BattleCorp wrote: »

I read that case above. What has that got to do with Sil Fox or what happened to him?

Are you trying to say there was no evidence against the person in the case above?

There was evidence. The testimony of the lady in question is evidence. The accused had ample opportunity to give his own evidence but decided against doing so.

I agree with the decision in the WRC. The decision may have been very different had he given evidence (testimony) to counter what the lady said.

One persons word is not evidence. It is not proof. The male was given legal advice not to answer any questions that they(solicitors) deemed were not work related.
Why didn't the female go and report it through the local constabulary and not the company management?

Necro

jimwallace197 wrote: »

So you a little corARD

,UCKY ME AND BROTHER DONT **** YOU. HE IS A GOOD MAN.

I LOVE HIM, HE IS MY BOTHER

Mod: Don't post in this thread again

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

OK, I think we may be getting closer, so I'll go again. I did not say we had gender quotas here for employment (not officially anyway). I asked you...

But we can try general again if you prefer and cast the net to cover all other western countries.



Is it really?

Gender quotas are very real even though they are not legally binding in Irish law. They're very real in Irish politics, not to mention the EC pushing for gender quotas in commissioner roles.

I'm hoping you might now be able to give an opinion on gender quotas. But hey, if you need to read up on it, I get it.

You can cast whatever net you like, but you're not catching anything. We don't have gender quotas for Irish businesses. It's nothing to do with them being "legally binding" or not. They just don't exist in Ireland.

We do have quotas for political candidates, which works over time to improve gender balance. That's a good thing.
https://irishtatler.com/news/gender-quota-ireland

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You can cast whatever net you like, but you're not catching anything. We don't have gender quotas for Irish businesses. It's nothing to do with them being "legally binding" or not. They just don't exist in Ireland.

We do have quotas for political candidates, which works over time to improve gender balance. That's a good thing.
https://irishtatler.com/news/gender-quota-ireland

What difference does their existence or legality in Ireland have? You either have an opinion on the subject, or you don't. We aren't talking about Santa or Unicorns. Your deflections are nonsense.

The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (aka....womens agenda council) are certainly talking about it.

I won't ask why you think gender quotas for political candidates is a good thing. Clearly someones gender is more important than their suitability to the role. You might be more receptive to such a question in the ladies lounge where you would have more support sharing your opinions, but i'll leave it at that.

Gremlinertia

...Ghost... Enough baiting, anymore of this there will be sanctions

BattleCorp

cokeiscrap wrote: »

One persons word is not evidence. It is not proof. The male was given legal advice not to answer any questions that they(solicitors) deemed were not work related.
Why didn't the female go and report it through the local constabulary and not the company management?

Of course one person's word is evidence. It's not very strong evidence but it it still evidence.

Witness statements are taken as evidence every day of the week in court cases and they are only one person's word.

I've no idea why the female didn't report it to the police. She still could if she wanted to. The female is under no obligation to go to the police by the way. That's up to her.

10000maniacs

This case proves beyond any shadow of doubt that it is the accuser that should need to have the evidence in these cases. The judge was impressed with the accusers evidence. WHY THE **** SO?
It was lies and good acting. Mr Fox was extremely lucky there was video evidence. Otherwise there would have been a miscarriage of justice. I suspect many similar cases are miscarriages of justice.
There has to be more evidence than ones word over another to swing a trial like this.

BattleCorp

10000maniacs wrote: »

There has to be more evidence than ones word over another to swing a trial like this.

In Sil Fox's case there were also witness statements where other people at the table saw nothing untoward happening. There wasn't just the video evidence, although the video evidence was very conclusive.

If I was wrongly accused of a crime I'd be very upset. If I was accused of a crime and there was video evidence to show that the crime didn't happen, I'd be going fcuking mental with the authorities for prosecuting me and making my life a misery.

Even though it's my tax money, I'd be delighted if Sil Fox gets a fortune.

AndrewJRenko

cokeiscrap wrote: »

One persons word is not evidence. It is not proof. The male was given legal advice not to answer any questions that they(solicitors) deemed were not work related.
Why didn't the female go and report it through the local constabulary and not the company management?

Sounds like yer man needs to have a hard discussion with his solicitors as to why the "keeping schtum" tactics did not work. Maybe the solicitors reckoned that he would only incriminate himself further by answering?

It's her call to report the matter to the Gardai or not. Presumably she was well aware of how difficult it would be to get a successful prosecution of a rape that occurred in a hotel bedroom.

...Ghost...

cokeiscrap wrote: »

Thankfully Sil Fox, an innocent man was cleared of any wrongdoing.
But at least he got a chance to prove his innocence in a court of law.
Some people don't get that chance and have their lives ruined without any evidence against them.


Look up workplacerelations.ie and when you click on find a decision type in beverage and search. Result is from 19th Oct 2020

I think the man in that case was very naïve to believe he would not be dismissed for gross misconduct. He was an idiot and should have sought legal advice and engaged the services of a solicitor. Had he done this, he may well have successfully defended the claim, but failing to give his account left the investigator and the company with no other choice than to find the claims of the alleged victim to be true and to dismiss him from employment.

He may very well be an innocent victim, but he did nothing to paint that picture and as a result, he put himself in a more challenging position should the alleged victim have decided to pursue criminal charges and also have a civil case go in her favour.

Let lies go unchallenged to be glimpsed as truth.

There is something odd about cases like this that doesn't quite fit with the narrative that the woman is being malicious.
In this case, the woman said Fox tickled her vagina for 30 seconds. In a case linked to earlier in the thread an actress accused a passer by in a train station of digitally penetrating her as he brushed past. In both cases cctv showed the allegation to be completely false.
Why would these women go through a long humiliating legal process for a lie? One possibility is revenge but neither seemed to have met the accused before, another is mental illness but there seems no evidence of this either.
It appears they genuinely believed they were touched, as in they experienced some sensory hallucination in that area of their body. Tactile hallucination.
I wonder how common that is?

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

I think the man in that case was very naïve to believe he would not be dismissed for gross misconduct. He was an idiot and should have sought legal advice and engaged the services of a solicitor. Had he done this, he may well have successfully defended the claim, but failing to give his account left the investigator and the company with no other choice than to find the claims of the alleged victim to be true and to dismiss him from employment.

He may very well be an innocent victim, but he did nothing to paint that picture and as a result, he put himself in a more challenging position should the alleged victim have decided to pursue criminal charges and also have a civil case go in her favour.

Let lies go unchallenged to be glimpsed as truth.

He DID have legal advice to not answer questions. I'm guessing that his legal advisers decided that he would only make things worse by talking.

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

He DID have legal advice to not answer questions. I'm guessing that his legal advisers decided that he would only make things worse by talking.

He said he got legal advice, but that's unclear. Reading between the lines, the WRC suspected his legal advice was not official. Sounds like his legal advice was received from a chap on the next bar stool. Real legal advice would have been to have a solicitor present.

The outcome was pretty bad. Lost his employment by not tackling the issue.

Necro

silver2020 wrote: »

That makes no difference to the type of malicious gardai that were involved here.

There's another case coming (won't get publicity) that I have knowledge of that the gardai REFUSED to look at GP & Hospital records and it went as far as DPP taking the case on the garda's presentation, but it did eventually get withdrawn when the garda was proven to be telling lies about part of the issue and new gardai put on the case. No disciplinary action taken against the garda but the innocent person spent over 3 months with very strict bail conditions for something they did not do.

Mod:

Please provide evidence for this claim to me via PM - otherwise don't bring it up again

BattleCorp

...Ghost... wrote: »

It is ridiculous that they arrest and detain innocent men based off nothing other than the word of a complainant. That action alone has the potential to ruin a life.

Sorry if I'm being blunt with my point below.

If I raped you but for whatever reason you didn't/couldn't go to the Gardai for a few weeks, would you expect them not to arrest me based on your word that I raped you?

BattleCorp

...Ghost... wrote: »

He said he got legal advice, but that's unclear. Reading between the lines, the WRC suspected his legal advice was not official. Sounds like his legal advice was received from a chap on the next bar stool. Real legal advice would have been to have a solicitor present.

And if he did get legal advice................ legal advice is based on what you tell the solicitor/barrister. If he didn't give the full story, the legal advice may have been flawed, or as mentioned earlier, maybe he was given legal advice not to say anything in case it incriminates him.

The fact that he didn't fight his case by giving his side of the story leaves only set of evidence to be examined.