Spiking.

@Donald Trump Yes, I believe the other 3 went ahead. But my point is that not everyone tells the truth. I genuinely don't know what more the Gardai can do to help victims come forward. Regarding the 2 I mentioned, it's possible that was their choice, but when you are a Garda you get to be privy to information that doesn't usually go public. From what I understood at the time, having spoken to serving Gardai in the area the complainant was from, one had a slight history and the other came back via word of mouth. Again, can't believe 100% that is true either.

Plenty of calls are cancelled by the callers when the Gardai arrive. Which puts them in a hard situation, because if anything happens down the line the Gardai would be blamed for not following up, but they can only follow up if they witness something or a statement is made. People still watch too much American cop tv shows, they really don't understand chain of evidence and actual procedures. Simply put, without a complaint or video evidence, there can't be an investigation (for sexual assault anyway).

But false allegations happen, and it would be unwise to not talk about it imo. False allegations can have a devastating effect on the person accused. Again, I do understand actual victims have a horrible time recounting it, but without that, there is no case really. An off the cuff guesstimation, but from my own experience at least 30% of reports don't make an official report. It's why management pushed the need to get a statement of withdrawal, which can also be impossible to get.

I agree, which is why I don't believe anyone until I see evidence. I may not say as much to them, but without evidence I'll always internally hold a "hmmmmm" moment. Carry over from my Garda days I suppose.

Read back on the thread. From the start it's been a debate between "skeptics" who want to see evidence before a claim is made, and people who find it offensive that evidence should be asked in the first place. Nobody claimed that spiking doesn't happen. Several people voiced their opinion on people making claims before anything has been proven, just to be called misogynistic or worse. How is this reasonable? If the genders were reversed would you still be so willing to believe, or would it be less rewarding with the crowd?

If someone tells me they were spiked then the standard of proof needed for me to believe them would not be that high.

If someone told me that El_duderino 09 spiked them then that would need a higher standard of proof.

If you were meeting up with your mates and the subject of Dublin city centre came up and one fella mentioned that he had been punched in the head for absolutely no reason when walking out of Supermacs on O'Connell St after a night out 2 years ago, would you need evidence before considering it plausible?

I think i just addressed the difference between accepting trivial claims and much more significant claims.

But The short answer it that of course it's plausible. We know people sometimes punch other people. The slightly longer answer is that i could accept it as true because it has no real consequence now (except for my friend) and we know people sometimes punch other people. But would I believe it with 100% certainty? No because 100% certainty doesn't really exist as a philosophical concept. But you asked if it's plausible and the answer is yes.

If my friend said he was punched in the head by a method which has never really been shown to exist, then I would reserve belief until there is evidence.

So what you're saying is that your friend has been the victim of a completely novel and deadly telekinetic punch! And you don't believe him? For shame!

#Ibelievehim 😉

Joking aside, the narrative around spiking and in particular narcotic spiking is pretty much this.

We are expected to believe any and all claims of same. Even when all available evidence points towards its rarity. Advising any and all people who even suspect they have been subjected to such an attack to report it? Is met with rants about Gardaí and victim blaming 🤷

There is and continues to be a serious issue with alcohol and alcohol spiking. There is also a considerable issue with alcohol consumption itself. Ones tolerance is not a set level and the impact of 4 drinks on 1 night versus 12 another are often completely incomparable. Yet we all too often trot out "I know my limits" as a justification for spiking. It has moved on from bad pint, throwing a whitener, being a lightweight or the drink must have reacted with my meds... To "I've been spiked!" it is all too often an abdication of responsibility, rather than a persistent mystery spiker!

On a personal and wholly anecdotal level. I have managed to get myself into considerably dangerous situations solely via alcohol. As 39y.o a few years ago. Blackout drunk yet functioning "as normal", getting myself over the course of 45minutes from completely lucid, jarred but lucid. To arrested, with a fairly serious injury (inflicted by Gardaí but completely and understandably so in their efforts to restrain me). I have zero memory of the 45 minutes, the arrest or of time spent in custody until @ 7am. From 2am to 7am is a blur at best with not a single memory I can say is a certainty.

Along with over the course of my late teens and early 20's plenty of similar nights out. Where a large portion of the night is at best garbled. Lots of stupid circumstances, the folly of youth or whatever else one wishes to call it. Can I now claim that all instances of exuberant over confidence, stupidity or variable alcohol tolerance? Can now be labelled as potential spiking incidents? As if we are to adopt the notion of believing the claimant? Surely I know my body, and know how I'd react? The reaction and aftermath were totally at odds with every other time I'd gotten drunk, it must have been a surreptitious spiking?

It wasn't, it was a combo of over indulgence and my state of body/health/mind at the time.

We need to normalise reporting, we need to be empathetic to people who've encountered such instances. What we also need to do? Is to ensure that our own drinking culture stops normalisation of massive and rapid over consumption. It has consequences, no need to use a narcotic to spike someone who is already quite intoxicated. Responsible consumption, of alcohol, drugs and any other intoxicant will keep the majority of people far safer. Awareness of your surroundings and friends are what anyone partaking in a "spiking" attack is trying to take away from a potential victim. Let's not make it too easy for them.

Yes, as mentioned in an earlier post, I have a friend who told me she was spiked as a teenager and ended up in hospital. Her sister and her friends brought her to the hospital when they noticed she was out of it. She has never drank due to a potentially serious underlying condition so when they saw her like that they immediately knew something was up and they brought her to the hospital.

I also have another friend (not Irish) who was drugged and assaulted in college. She doesn't drink so when she tells me that she wasn't drinking back then I believe that she wasn't. Similar to what I mentioned to Potential-Monke above, she could identify who did the assault but she could not know for certain whether they were the one who did the spiking

Ah a 1 in 10 possibility, that's a great way to build an appeal to emotion. Yet it's not based in any evidence. Evidence is what needs to lead any response, not feelings. Evidence has been posted earlier in this thread that confirms on the medical reports gathered in multiple countries up to 2017, that narcotic spiking is vanishingly rare. On that basis your 1 in 10 is indicative of silliness tbh.

What is the ringer? Without reports, without actual credible evidence of any such activity being widespread as many are claiming?

Reporting doesn't mean conviction, arrest or justice for anyone who has encountered such an attack (Unfortunately). But what is does mean? Is that at the very least a toxicology screen and identification of any administered substance are identified. This can then shape an evidence led policy. Versus the current landscape of panic and affording credibility to sometimes frankly ridiculous claims.

Your mention of the lad in London? I'm going to assume you mean Reynhard Singha? The man convicted of multiple tapes and of using narcotics to do it? This has already been brought up in the thread, and funnily enough is very germane to the point of narcotic spiking that you have missed, either deliberately or by chance?

He isolated drunk people, played a good Samaritan and brought them to his home. A venue where he then proceeded to drug his victims. He didn't cruise clubs and pubs seeking to roofie people before he got them home.

Because controlling and directing a victim in public is both nigh on impossible and incredibly risky. The point you think is a gotcha? Really only reinforces the difficulty that is inherent in administration of narcotic or sedative substances to a victim when you don't have full control of them and their surroundings.

So if you think there are 9 out of the 10 people making it up then the Guards should just make it difficult for all of them to report it. Perhaps they should subject them all to "ah g'way outta that. You were just being your usual drunken slutty self and you got what you wanted and now you feel guilty about it and are here wasting your time".

I am not sure what you fail to understand about the reference to your man in London. It was an example of someone targeting already drunk people to drug. It was trying to explain to you that there might indeed be a bias towards already drunk victims when it comes to spiking. You appear to be of the opinion that a person who was drinking cannot have been spiked........................ I can't really explain it any clearer to you.

@Donald Trump already dealt with Reynard Singha and the circumstances in the above post along with outlying the academic/medical state of play with regard to narcotic facilitated sexual assault. Without reporting of suspected instances? The numbers in the report above are the base line for any response. Unless people report a suspicion, and evidence supporting a claim of narcotic spiking is found?

No evidence of a drug based spiking attack exists, it's not about conviction rates. It's about evidence to support even the basic assertion that a drug was administered in the 1st place.

Your assertion that I am of the opinion that someone can't be spiked if they had been drinking? Could you do me a favour, clarify where I have said that?

Because it's bullshit, it was neither said nor implied by me.

What I have made exceedingly clear? Is that there is near zero evidence for drug based sexual assault. I have reiterated on multiple occasions that unless and until reporting of the suspicion of same is widespread, and actually verified! That it will remain a vanishingly small risk in comparison to the risks of alcohol.

Then, because I noticed you are a fan of anecdotes. I gave my own experience of an incident that could well be labelled a result of spiking. That's surely as valid a piece of evidence as your 2 friends?

Again, where has that been said?

What was mentioned was the quality of an anecdote as evidence.

You're really struggling to link things here, did you find where I said someone couldn't be spiked if they were drunk yet?

Or is that just a lie on your part?

Because I quoted you a post where I outlined precisely why drunkenness contributes to the possibility, but now you seem to be ignoring the question and spinning your wheels in bullshit?

Yet you appear to trust the anecdote of my friend who can't drink for medical reasons yet ended up in hospital ..... but I reckon if that story had been that she assured me she genuinely only had 2 vodkas and ended up in hospital you'd be casting shade on her story...................

That's twice you've used the term "demand evidence". But I haven't suggested i would ask for any more evidence in the case of something that has little consequence (to me) at all. I might just accept it as functionally true, maybe exaggerated unintentionally, maybe misremembered, maybe intentionally trying to mislead, maybe bang on accurate. But is the stakes are low then it's easy to functionally accept it as true.

And since you got the term "functionally accept as true" wrong, would it be fair to say you don't understand the difference between functionally accepting something as true and believing something based on evidence?