Bagrat Kudzievi

Not agreed at all. A nightclub is a busy place with lots of people. Being in a taxi is alone with a man. How many rapes have you heard of that occurred In a nightclub or started In a nightclub. The vast majority of rapes I have heard about are when a woman is alone with a man.

So is being taken from a nightclub and being assaulted outside. Why does one rare occurrence mean a girl is responsible but another rare occurrence means she is responsible.

I wouldn't advise anyone to get legless drunk. Not would I blame them if sometjing awful happened to them.

Everyone knows you shouldn't get blackout drunk. But it happens. People misjudge their intake or lose track once they get intially tipsy. The blame game helps nobody. I could patronizingly lecture my daughter or sister all I like. Won't make a blind bit of difference.

And if I lecture them AFTER and assault then I'd just be being a c**t.

Why is this part gendered. I hope you would equally advise your son to not get blackout drunk.

Nobody said anything about getting blackout drunk every week. I would advise want individual whether male or female, related to me or not to not get blackout drunk every week.

However, anyone who drinks even a little has the potential to occasionally drink too much, misjudge their intake, etc.

Would you tell your daughter who got drunk one weekend that she must accept responsibility for her own rape?

If anyone is in any way drunk they can't be questioned until cleared as a poster pointed out earlier.

If someone shows high level goal oriented decision making such as carrying someone to a quieter location to carry out an assault then they can consent.

Simples.

This is the explanation I wanted. So is this in law in terms of defining legal consent?

You haven't explained that he was not drunk.

You have explained that he may have had only one drink or maybe not, maybe he had ten, all we know is that the gardai described him as intoxicated.

The argument that he had enough cognition to carry someone off to a quieter spot is an argument that he was "sober enough". It's just not well defined, i know myself I can do a lot of things while inebriated at a struggle, like write code or ride a bike but this suggests that if you are sober enough to have intent and execute it, then you are sober enough to consent?

I think I agree in general if it's a mistake like you're making it out e.g misjudging alcohol intake and getting hammered. There is a difference between doing that and going out to get hammered.

But I am trying to get at if someone is intentionally taking risks. For example you used a bike example in a subsequent post and I have had a bike stolen because I didn't lock it correctly. Simple mistake and I take responsibility for it and have locked my bike properly since. But your argument is that if I willingly decide to leave my bike unlocked tomorrow and then come back later and see it's robbed then it's not my fault at all. You can make that argument all day but my bike is still robbed and will be again if I do the same thing the next day. You can tell me it's not my fault again when the new bike gets robbed the next day but I'll still have to splash out on a new bike. If you tell me that I should buy a lock and lock the bike what will you say when I tell you it's not my fault if it gets robbed and I'm going to continue to leave it unlocked. You have to agree with me right? It's not my fault if it gets robbed if I do it again and again. Maybe on the 50th bike you'd tell me that it might be partially my fault?

You simply seem to never be able to get to a stage where you hold someone partially responsible and that's not a healthy outlook for me.

Do you have any reason to believe that this girl went out intending to get this drunk? Most women I know do not intend to lose their senses on a night out.

As for the bike analogy and intentionally taking risks, your analogy is highly flawed. You need to evoke the idea of someone having 50 bikes robbed and still putting themselves in the same high risk situation to make your argument.

It's pretty obvious that most women who get raped have not been raped 50 times before, and that if you go to a nightclub 50 times and get legless you will not get assaulted 50 times. It's not a high risk situation no matter what you believe.

Your analogy might make sense if a woman was getting blackout drunk while hanging out in the sexual offenders section of a maximum security prison after having already been assaulted there 50 times.

But the fact that your analogy needs to be so twisted and outlandish speaks for itself.

Well one bike robbed would be enough to make the point nevermind 50 but I have to go to extremes to prove that your logic wouldn't place any responsibility on the person in the most extreme circumstances. You have to place her in a sexual offenders unit and have her intentionally get drunk having been raped 50 times before that, before you can perhaps tell her that the 51st time it happened she might have been at fault somewhat.

I don't know whether or not the girl intended to get that drunk. I've gone out myself intending to drink a huge amount and get hammered so it does happen but in this instance I would say it was just an inexperienced student drinking too much. I never really had a problem with this case by the way, I was just responding to people who would never place the blame on someone for putting themselves into a risky situation, ever. I think once the guy lifts her away and you have the bouncers having to get involved because they were concerned for her safety then it's pretty cut and dry unless the guy has a good story to suggest otherwise which I highly doubt.

The point surely is that getting so drunk you remember nothing of the next day is in general high risk. Go take a look at A and E departments on a Saturday night.

Whether it's all on the other person or not, the victim will have to live with the consequences of being raped for the rest of their lives.