RTÉ journo given 15months for sexually assaulting woman as she slept

Whataboutism at its finest.

It would still be his word against hers though. And that appears to be a mojor problem too. Should he have her sign something. Or record a video saying she consents?

So far in a thread on sexual assault we have the usual types of posters playing what about bingo.

Topics that have nothing to do with sexual assualt but have been brought in.

Lisa Smith

Anti immigrant chat.

You would have to be fairly specific and even at that the law may not see it that way.

But the reality is couples are not having that conversation it's just not realistic.

What happens in reality is the other person responds favourably or tells you fúck off back to sleep and that's the end of it.

But the jist of the OPs point is correct even if unlikely, if you touch your partner while they are asleep that is sexual assault according to our laws, it's crystal clear, if not the most crystal of clear of laws surrounding consent.

It's extremely rare a case like this would get to court. It's why there is 3 threads on it.

But it is a discussion worth having, now the extremes of she is a mental ill bítch to he is a serial predator is nonsense, the debate lies firmly in-between.

The risk? The law is clear.

What you are talking about is the risk that you will be reported for sexual assault - that's very different, where your partner will in all likely hood sprain your hand and tell you do one, some one you don't know may report you. But even that is extremely rare.

In both situations it is very much sexual assault. You cannot consent when you are asleep.

I don't believe so and the devil would be in the detail, but as reported:

"The bill would change the current situation where a man is not guilty of rape if he believed that he had the consent of a woman.

Under the new proposals, the accused's defence that he believed she was consenting has to be objectively reasonable."

As things stand, the benefit of the doubt (that can inevitably arise in such cases) is given to the accused party. As reported, the benefit of the doubt will now be given to the accuser.

That's a very big and fundamental change. It's a potential charter for mostly women to deny they gave consent and have their partners prosecuted & convicted of rape.

Please explain how it could be otherwise. In such a case, presumably the judge & jury would hear evidence from both sides but when push comes to shove, the benefit of the doubt will now be given to the accuser.

This is poor proposed legislation and should be resisted by any right thinking person.

Well that is clearly nonsense, but so is the contention that no way this couldn't happen between partners.

You cannot consent when you are asleep, whether it is a one night stand or ye are married 50 years.

The guy in the case was 100% wrong and she was 100% the victim, he committed sexual assault.

Now if I were to do the exact same to my partner, it would be exactly the same crime.

So the nuance here is not really the crime itself, but the reporting of the crime. He got for want of a better word 'unlucky'. Not as unlucky as her obviously - she is still very much the victim in this, but separately judging it on the facts and merits of the case I am surprised he received a custodial sentence.

The judge seems to have second guessed her own judgement.

OK well, there we have it. I'll take your word for it that that's what the law says.

What's the need for any more discussion on the matter then? The guy did it, he admitted it, was sentenced and that's it.

His doing the act was the detrimental part. Maybe he could have lied his way out of it. That's hardly a prescription for dealing with crimes in the country. Just lie and say it didn't happen.

Fair play to the guy for telling the truth. He let himself down with his behaviour, not be telling truth about it.

Discussing the matter is fine. There are posters who claim he did nothing wrong or the main thing he did wrong was admit the truth. That's the discussion I'm questioning.

He certainly did something wrong, he broke the law, he sexually assaulted that lady.

As for the truth I don't think he ever admitted to groping her, just kissing her.

Personally I think he should be given "credit" for being open in his interviews.

I would wonder would they many of us be about if the ould lad didn't put the hand over and try and get her lossened up a bit.

All of her friends.

Because on the basis of probabilities, friends are not going to turn around and go 'you dumb slut you asked for it'.

That's not what friends generally tend to do. I don't believe that is what happened. Of course I could be wrong.

Like I said I imagine the breakdown in the relationships were far more nuanced.

If you focus on the 2 extreme sides of the debate, you are not going to get the quality you have asked for.

Best maybe to return to the OPs question.

Was the sentence fair. I think it was quite harsh for reasons I have already outlined, how about you?

Send us a picture of your arse and we'll confirm.

I think you're only getting half the point. If a woman or a man went to the Gardaí and accused someone of rape, but indicated they'd given some form of consent.. how far would that go as things stand? Nowhere.

Take the current case in this thread, there was no intercourse. But suppose there had been and the woman (in this case) goes to the Gardaí and says she was raped. The fella says he got consent, she says she didn't give consent. Two people, no witnesses. Under this proposed legislation, the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the accuser on balance.

You must surely see what's wrong with that.