Bagrat Kudzievi

i doubt she wanted to be carried away and sexually assaulted either. she was certainly in no state to consent if she had to be carried.

There were CCTV footage and numerous witnesses, including two bouncers who followed the lad to a park I think, who obviously thought something untoward was going to happen. So easily defensible it was not.

And what if they get a taxi and the taxi driver assaults them.

Or ask a trusted male friend to walk them home and he assuakts them.

All the woman's fault according to posters on here.

I don't think that is what is insinuated at all.

Explain the difference.

How do you decide when a woman bears responsibility and when she doesn't?

For example, women are often encouraged to take a picture of a taxi they are taking and send it to a friend.

So if they get in a taxi alone and are assaulted then by the standards of some posters in here they put themselves in a situation where there was a possibility of being assaulted.

Why does being drunk make you partially responsible for your own sexual assault but getting a taxi doesn't?

That's a good question.

There is a difference of opinion between posters as to how much responsibility someone has to take for putting themselves in a risky situation and ending upon the wrong side of something bad happening.

It has to come down to how much risk you're exposing yourself to. We have to say that there is a continuum. In this example there are cases of people being assaulted in taxis and there will be more. It's prudent for girls to send a pic to their friends as you say but ultimately you can say that they took a risk getting in the taxi but we all take that risk and the assault only happens to a very small percentage of people.

However at the other end of the continuum you have something like if you drive your car to the local shops in somewhere like Darndale in Coolock and you leave the keys in it while you go to the shop while some youths are hanging around. If you come out and find that the car gets robbed then at some level you have to look at the owner of the car and say that you took a big risk there and it was likely you'd end up robbed. We have people here who would say that the owner of the car did nothing wrong. If he bought another car and went to another area and did the same thing you'd also have the same people saying it wasn't his fault. Somewhere along the line you have to attribute some blame to the person who is putting themselves in a situation where there is a lot of risk.

Now when you take an example of a girl getting legless drunk in an environment where there are a very large number of men around, how likely is it that one or more of those men are looking to predate on a woman in that state and will home in on her? It's pretty likely isn't it? If you have about 200+ men in an environment. We can say that there shouldn't be men around looking to take advantage of women in that state and that is true but these men are out there. So do you continue to get legless drunk and taken advantage of and then blame the men week in week out? How many times would it have to happen to someone before you say to them perhaps you shouldn't get so legless drunk in that environment?

These are tough questions I think

How do you decide the risk level?

For instance, I know many girls who have gotten legless drunk and haven't been assaulted.

I assume if you've socialised a bit you also have seen many a girl get extremely drunk. Were most of them assaulted?

So really it's not likely you will be assaulted if you get legless drunk.

So if someone argues that a girl assaulted in a taxi, or by a trusted male friend is partially responsible for her assault, what do you say to them?

Do you agree that since she took some level of risk she is partially responsible for her assault?

Surely you mean drunk beyond a certain point, in this case the convicted was also drunk(according to the report) so clearly there has to be some degree of deciding if a person was still lucid enough to make responsible decisions such as ascertaining consent.

A total mis-characterisation of what's being said, but then again, yiu know it is. You've a habit of engaging in such mis-characterisations.

gMost ir

The risk of getting assaulted while legless drunk in a nightclub with 200+ guys is way higher than the risk of getting assaulted in a taxi. Agreed?

I wouldn't say a girl (or guy) is responsible for being attacked by a close friend or a taxi driver. Those are just situations where attacks are quite rare.

Just imagine it was your sister or child if you have one. Would you want her to be blackout drunk in a busy club? Multiple times? How many sexual assaults would it take for you to suggest that she doesn't get legless drunk in that environment? 5? 20? There is an issue with spiking in clubs and in any given club there are going to unfortunately be some predatory men there looking for women to take advantage of. Do you think that's not the case?

To your last question, my opinion on this particular case is largely based on the information about the guy lifting her away and carrying her to a new location which was more secluded. That just suggests that he was more alert than her and was taking advantage of her. However, we have heard absolutely nothing from his side about the situation. But based on the available information, I would tend to agree with the jury verdict and it's an unfortunate situation for the girl and I really do symphatize with her. I think any girl getting blackout drunk in that environment without good friends to look after her is definitely taking a big risk. You do realize that it is not a good idea for a girl to get hammered to the point where she can't walk and has no friends to look after her? What would you say to your child? Would you be ok with her going out and getting blackout drunk to the point where she doesn't know where she is, in crowded clubs every week?