# Dozens sympathise with sex offender



## wavejumper (17 Dec 2009)

"Dozens of people queued inside a Co Kerry courthouse yesterday to shake hands and sympathise with a man who was jailed for five years for sexually assaulting a woman in Listowel."

[broken link removed]

Shocking stuff.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

I wanted to post this but didn't know how to word it.

Parish priest was among them and was interviewed on NewsTalk this morning where he refered to.."the alleged assault" and stated it was a "miscarrige of justice"

Its disguesting stuff and proof that as a nation we haven't moved forward. at all.

Well done to the lady involved for going ahead with it, real courage shown on her part.


----------



## Sunny (17 Dec 2009)

Yeah amazing how we all rush forward to condemn the Church for their attitudes to child abuse and yet we see here how attitudes of normal people to sex crimes is still stuck in the dark ages as well. 

The 50 people involved should be named and shamed since the victim seems to have suffered the same fate. It was disgusting.


----------



## Howitzer (17 Dec 2009)

Unbelievable.


> Foley, who had been celebrating his 34th birthday on the night of the offence, had denied the charge. He told gardaí he had “found your wan” after he had gone to relieve himself near a skip at 3.50am. However CCTV footage showed him carrying her to the skip area. It also emerged he had met her earlier in a nightclub.


----------



## haminka1 (17 Dec 2009)

just because the woman was an adult doesn't make a lesser value victim than the kids, i found the attitude of those guys absolutely disgusting, not only the parish priest but also others - they surely have mothers, wives, daughters - would they embrace a guy who assaulted them as well? just because he's a good mate and great to watch rugby and drink beer with doesn't make him a nice person ...


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

Sunny said:


> Yeah amazing how we all rush forward to condemn the Church for their attitudes to child abuse and yet we see here how attitudes of normal people to sex crimes is still stuck in the dark ages as well.
> 
> The 50 people involved should be named and shamed since the victim seems to have suffered the same fate. It was disgusting.


 
Why were they allowed to come into contact with a prisoner in a court of law ???

Who was in charge and allowed it to happen in the first place.

Few things get under my skin it this country as i expect most of the stuff i see. But this really really has my blood boiling.


----------



## Sunny (17 Dec 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Few things get under my skin it this country as i expect most of the stuff i see. But this really really has my blood boiling.


 
Judging by the public reaction, you are not alone. For me, these people are not much better than Foley himself. As I say, lets see how big these men are when their names and places of work are published. Scumbags.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2009)

This happened on the same day that a priest was found guilty of over 70 counts of serious sexual assault on a young boy. The judge deemed it a suitable punishment that he spend 18 months in prison.

What the hell is wrong with us? Why are sex crimes treated as a misdemeanour?
Rape is second only to murder as a crime and in many cases worse than some murders. People found guilty of the rape of a young child should face 15-20 years in prison at the very minimum. The age of the accused should never be use to mitigate the severity of the sentence.  

The sentences handed down to child rapists are utterly outrageous as is the general attitude to those who covered up their crimes. I couldn’t give a damn if a bishop resigns or not. I am only interested in knowing when those who covered up and facilitated these child rapists will face trial and how long they will spend in prison. I would suggest that they should serve longer sentences that the actual abusers just as those who facilitate crimes against humanity are more culpable than those who carry out the crimes. 

This is what we should be protesting about, this is our national crisis, this is our national shame.


----------



## Caveat (17 Dec 2009)

What is wrong with these people?

Apart from being neanderthal and repugnant are they also all either blind or deaf? 



> Foley, who had been celebrating his 34th birthday on the night of the offence, *had denied the charge.* He told gardaí he had “found your wan” after he had gone to relieve himself near a skip at 3.50am.
> 
> *However CCTV footage showed him carrying her to the skip area. It also emerged he had met her earlier in a nightclub.*


 
Judgement passed, the man shown to be a liar as well as an opportunistic thug, and still all this??

It's unbelievable. That poor woman.


----------



## Firefly (17 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> This happened on the same day that a priest was found guilty of over 70 counts of serious sexual assault on a young boy. The judge deemed it a suitable punishment that he spend 18 months in prison.
> 
> What the hell is wrong with us? Why are sex crimes treated as a misdemeanour?
> Rape is second only to murder as a crime and in many cases worse than some murders. People found guilty of the rape of a young child should face 15-20 years in prison at the very minimum. The age of the accused should never be use to mitigate the severity of the sentence.
> ...


 
A BIG +1 to this. We need a minumim sentence without parole of at least 15 years. On top of this I think we need to consider giving these rapists the chop!


----------



## VOR (17 Dec 2009)

We hear stories on the news about the treatment of women in places like Afghanistan and pretent to hold a higher standard here. Obviously not as the community have taken the side of the callous offender.
This woman rightly stood up and gave evidence after an assault. What message does this send to other women?

And what does this say about us as a society? As mentioned earlier, why did the court allow this show of misplaced support happen?


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

With the way she has been treated by her community i am in awe of her to be honest.

If anyone here knows here in any way at all please pass on my admiration to her, its not much but those 50 who did that are nothing. People care for her and what she has had to go through.

And i am thinking of contacting that priests bishop to regisiter my disgust at his actions and his interview this morning on NewsTalk.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2009)

On reading the story in the link posted (and hearing about it on the radio etc..), the sympathisers in question need to be rounded up and educated about the effects of a sex crime, how it affects the victim, the victims family and friends, how the family and friends of the perpetrator are affected - how many lives are affected negatively. I would make this educational process as graphic and hard hitting as possible so that these people understand exactly what they are condoning.

They should definitely be named and shamed. They are as bad as the sexual offender.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

truthseeker said:


> On reading the story in the link posted (and hearing about it on the radio etc..), the sympathisers in question need to be rounded up and educated about the effects of a sex crime, how it affects the victim, the victims family and friends, how the family and friends of the perpetrator are affected - how many lives are affected negatively. I would make this educational process as graphic and hard hitting as possible so that these people understand exactly what they are condoning.
> 
> They should definitely be named and shamed. *They are as bad as the rapist himself.*


 
Sorry, sexual assault and not rape.....don't want AAM done over it !!!


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Sorry, sexual assault and not rape.....don't want AAM done over it !!!


 
Good point - my earlier words in error. 

They are as bad as the sexual offender.

Have edited my earlier post.


----------



## Teatime (17 Dec 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Parish priest was among them and was interviewed on NewsTalk this morning where he refered to.."the alleged assault" and stated it was a "miscarrige of justice"


 
Heard that interview and the priest came across as a complete idiot.


----------



## Bronte (17 Dec 2009)

Mothers daughter sisters make sure you don't take a rape case.


----------



## Wiggles (17 Dec 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> And i am thinking of contacting that priests bishop to regisiter my disgust at his actions and his interview this morning on NewsTalk.



If you can get the information please PM to me as I would like to do that as well. Disgusted by the whole story, I really am.

Sometimes I'm really ashamed to call myself Irish.......................


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

Or catholic, within  my family we know one of the local priests and he is all that keeps any faith going within. He is a good man and a spiritual man, its the twats like that parish priest take give him and the other good men a bad name and hurts the chruch tell believe in and work so hard for. 

Never mind the child abuse, idiots like that priest in Kerry can do worse damage with their mouths.


----------



## Bronte (17 Dec 2009)

How many people will attend the church service of the priest from now on I wonder?  How many women, how many are married or are daughters of the men who shook the sex offender's hand.  Interesting that it was only men that shook his hand.  

I must say the judge is to be commended on his comments.  He saw straight throw the sex offender and the priest.  

Pity the poor woman who was so brave and will have to live in such a town.


----------



## Slash (17 Dec 2009)

The bishop of Kerry is:

Bishop William Murphy
Bishop's House,
Killarney,
Co. Kerry

More info on www.catholicbishops.ie.


----------



## Ciaraella (17 Dec 2009)

That women is a hero. The amount of cases like this that never make it to the courts is a disgrace. There are so many cases where woman are afraid to speak out, she should be very proud of herself.


----------



## Purple (17 Dec 2009)

ciaraella said:


> that women is a hero. The amount of cases like this that never make it to the courts is a disgrace. There are so many cases where woman are afraid to speak out, she should be very proud of herself.



+1


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

+2


----------



## moneyhoney (17 Dec 2009)

I heard this guy's fiance on Newstalk at lunchtime....hadn't heard anything about this case up until now. 

She said so many things that just shocked the hell out of me:

1. She was standing by him (her choice I guess)
2. He wasn't guilty & had been falsely accused (though Eamonn Keane KEPT saying he had been convicted so was gulity & not "accused")
3. She was overwhelmed with the support of the community
4. And this really got to me - she had not seen or heard *one* piece of evidence during the trial that made her think he was guilty. I suppose it's good that jury had more of an open mind.

In fairness to Newstalk, they had a spokesperson from local rape crisis centre on & she was very very good & said that if anyone wanted to send cards to the victim, they would pass them on.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (17 Dec 2009)

On liveline they said that if you want to support for this lady you may send a card to Kerry Rape & Sexual Crisis Centre.

They are at 5 green view terrace, tralee.

I feel sick the more i hear about this.


----------



## annR (17 Dec 2009)

I'm so puzzled by this . . .I have never ever heard the like before.  I thought when I saw the headline that it was a case where it was a case of her word against his and people had sided with him but there seems to be proper evidence.
What was his defence, that he just found her somewhere and decided to carry her to the skip area?
Sickening but I think there must be more to this.  Even if those people thought he is innocent would they not consider that there is a chance they might be wrong about it and not be shaking his hand in front of the victim.


----------



## thedaras (17 Dec 2009)

Castlegregory Parish*Address**:*Castlegregory, Co Kerry*Phone**:*066-7139145*Web Address**:**Email**:*castlepres@eircom.net *Key contact**:*Fr Sean Sheehy. P.P.*Mass Times**:*Castlegregory. Tue-Fri 10am, Sat 10am, 7pm, Sun 11am, Cloghane. Wed 6.30pm,
....................................................................

Heres a blog I found which sums up how I feel..


bigmentaldisease.com/ireland/i-knew-kerry-was-full-of-perverts/ - 9 hours 
ago

I have emailed the bishops and the listowel parish and now it seems sean sheehy is in fact from castle gregory parish so have emailed them too to express my disgust.
The people involved should be ashamed of themselves.
What kind of message is this giving out..
Sean sheehy should resign, Im focused on him as he went on national radio to defend the fact that he stood up for the convicted sex offender and also said the convicted sex offender hasnt an abusive bone in his body!! disgusting behaviour..
Maybe show your disgust by emailing the bishops and the parishs involved .
Im sickened ..


----------



## thedaras (17 Dec 2009)

annR said:


> I'm so puzzled by this . . .I have never ever heard the like before. I thought when I saw the headline that it was a case where it was a case of her word against his and people had sided with him but there seems to be proper evidence.
> What was his defence, that he just found her somewhere and decided to carry her to the skip area?
> Sickening but I think there must be more to this. Even if those people thought he is innocent would they not consider that there is a chance they might be wrong about it and not be shaking his hand in front of the victim.


 _What exactly are you puzzled about?_
_You say there seems to be proper evidence,id ask you to choose your words carefully! There is and was correct and proper evidence.._
_You say,sickening but you think there must be more to this.._
_You need to elaborate here about what exactly you mean..It is a fact that there is a convicted sex offender who was found guilty by his peers and was sentenced to 7 years in prision,he was found GUILTY,it is not an easy charge to bring nor is it taken lightly ,,the evidence pointed to his guilt,it may be that this idea that there is more to it ,is exactly what the hand shaking and support for the sex offender was meant to happen,I for one am not falling for it._
_It does not matter what those other people think,he had already been found GUILTY.._
_Their behaviour was appalling and should not have been allowed to happen._


----------



## Bronte (17 Dec 2009)

annR said:


> I'm so puzzled by this . .


 

It's not at all a puzzle, quite easy really, you go out as a female, dress inappropriately, drink too much and well you're asking for it, what do you expect.  That's how it works in Ireland.

He's an upstanding member of the community, everyone knows him and sure he wouldn't do that.  

It's all very well for everyone to say how brave she is, and I really think she was very brave, but she will have to live with it in that small place for the rest of her life.  She will probably be forced to leave the town, that's the reality of it.

Until people stand up to sex offenders like him and stand up to the men who shook his hand and stand up to the priest who gave a character reference and who continues along with his fiance to give witness to the wrong done to the CONVICTED sex abuser, until then nothing will change.


----------



## Sunny (17 Dec 2009)

I have to say, the more I read, the more physically sick I feel. And I say that as a man. Can't imagine how angry victims of sexual assult must feel when they see things like this.


----------



## thedaras (17 Dec 2009)

Show your disgust for sean sheehys appalling behaviour which he went on national radio to defend, and the fact that he said that the CONVICTED ,FOUND GUILTY ,SEX OFFENDER hadnt an abusive bone in his body!!

castlepres@eircom.net ( This is the email address for castlegregory parish where I understand sean sheehy is parish priest)


bishopshouse@eircom.net

I did.


----------



## carpedeum (17 Dec 2009)

There is something wrong with the Irish psyche. 

Look how Limerick congregations came out in defence of Bishop Murray. Look how the other four bishops linked to the recent Dublin diocese reports on child abuse are also still in position with the support of their congregation. Look how we continue to elect corrupt TDs and county councillors, deferring to them in public. I lived surrounded by Ray Burke, GV Wright (Mr Amnesia) and Charlie Haughey. The influence these people had was like that of a medieval laird. 

The carry on in the Listowel case is a snapshop of how child abuse in institutions, presbyteries and within the family was covered up and ignored by the genereal community for the past two hundred years or so. Frightening. This is why we have to continue to be vigilent and ensure the religious extremists and their stormtroopers such as Youth Defence, SPUC, Opus Dei etc are never allowed to hijack our leglislature and democratic institutions. We need to continue to heal our sick society and build a pluralist, tolerant and totally inclusive society, including a truely Christian (not based on the flawed intolerant autocratic Ratzinger doctrine) segment among other religions.


----------



## ninsaga (17 Dec 2009)

The opening line from The Examiner this morning........

_"It was a scene that could have come from a John B Keane play – a bizarre gesture of support by some plain people of Kerry for a convicted sex offender."_

......how true indeed!


----------



## BoscoTalking (17 Dec 2009)

even worse the priest admitted he made his statement based on his knowledge on the person (girl) and her statement that was blurry with drink. 
That was on TV3 news this evening.


----------



## gipimann (17 Dec 2009)

pennypitstop said:


> even worse the priest admitted he made his statement based on his knowledge on the person (girl) and her statement that was blurry with drink.
> That was on TV3 news this evening.


 
...which appears to contradict what the priest said on Newstalk this morning - when asked why he hadn't offered support and comfort to the victim, he replied that he didn't approach her because he didn't know her....


----------



## D8Lady (17 Dec 2009)

The priest said it didn't occur to him to shake her hand. 

The young women was assaulted, dumped, naked from waist down, by a skip. 

The locals lined up to shake the guilty man's hand, hug him and support him.  

I feel sick.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2009)

D8Lady said:


> The priest said it didn't occur to him to shake her hand.
> 
> The young women was assaulted, dumped, naked from waist down by a skip.
> 
> ...


 
According to this report~:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/bouncer-gets-seven-years-for-sex-assault-1978715.html

He was actually found by the guards while he was 'crouching' over her, and her semi conscious and naked from the waist down, bruised and scratched.

It makes me wonder, if the guards hadnt come across him 'in the act' so to speak, would that poor girl have even come forward at all?

Even his language would indicate a lack of respect for women, he told the guards he 'found yer wan'.

I am going to send a card to the Kerry Rape Crisis Centre, very least I can do to support the victim here, let her see that not everyone thinks like the sickos in her community who would publically support a sex offender in front of his victim. I wonder who cards should be addressed to?


----------



## AgathaC (17 Dec 2009)

Sickening sickening story. I thought I had misread the headline when I saw it this morning. How difficult this must have been for that woman to go to court with this and then to witness this sickening and shameful show of support. I am lost for words.


----------



## mathepac (17 Dec 2009)

Ron Burgundy said:


> Why were they allowed to come into contact with a prisoner in a court of law ???
> 
> Who was in charge and allowed it to happen in the first place. ...


My understanding is that this was a sentencing hearing as the judge remanded the convicted sex offender in custody having already been found guilty.

The prison service custodians and the courts service, who work for the victim by the way, need to explain the bizarre circumstances where so many people had ready physical access to a convicted sex offender who was, to all intents and purposes, in prison.

The carefully orchestrated intimidatory campaign executed in and around the court-house beggars belief. Myles Dungan interviewed a Kerry court-reporter with decades of experience on RTE this morning and he said he has never witnessed anything like it.


----------



## truthseeker (17 Dec 2009)

mathepac said:


> The carefully orchestrated intimidatory campaign executed in and around the court-house beggars belief.


 
Facebook have removed a group set up by a supporter of Danny Foley where friends of his had publically posted wallposts with threats like 'She better hide' - the details are over on boards.ie where some posters included pictures of the pages when they were still in existance. Disgusting.


----------



## MOB (17 Dec 2009)

Of course there is no good or justifiable reason that she should feel forced to leave the area - but I expect that the victim of this crime may well find it a lot easier to move away and establish herself in a less nakedly partisan community. 

I wonder if her economic circumstances might currently be a limiting factor.  

If so, I wonder is there any practical (financial) help being organised to which one can donate?  

Otherwise I fear that she may end up being victimised all over again by our rapacious chequebook-wielding media.


----------



## MandaC (17 Dec 2009)

I heard this on the radio this morning driving to work and I had to pull over the car to grasp what was being said.

My father grew up as an orphan in an Industrial School in the 40's and 50's and I have lived first hand the fallout from this.

Have the church and clergy learnt no lessons from the past?  I cannot believe this was allowed happen in Ireland in 2009.  

People need to make a stand and be counted to let the bullies who shook the convicted sex offenders hand this cannot be tolerated.  I will write to the priest, diocise, even the Pope if I have to.

I am so angry over this.


----------



## circle (17 Dec 2009)

This is absolutely appalling, I just can't understand the mindset of people like this, why do they hate women with such a passion? It's also scary to think that he used to be a bouncer.

There are however four aspects of this case that I find encouraging:
- That the Gardaí gave her the support needed to convict
- That a Kerry jury returned a unanimous verdict to convict him
- That the Judge was appropriate, particularly with sentencing and his comments
- That the media have given this the coverage it deserves - those people need to understand why what they did was so wrong.

It's difficult to see it now, but we have come a long way.


----------



## circle (17 Dec 2009)

Another case in North Kerry of the community rallying behind a convicted sex offender and harassing his victim:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/FURY+...S+HER+ATTACKER;+Canon's+verdict...-a061103960


----------



## DavyJones (17 Dec 2009)

Talk is cheap. What will we do about it?


----------



## thedaras (17 Dec 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Talk is cheap. What will we do about it?


 
Show your disgust for sean sheehys appalling behaviour which he went on national radio to defend, and the fact that he said that the CONVICTED ,FOUND GUILTY ,SEX OFFENDER hadnt an abusive bone in his body!!

castlepres@eircom.net ( This is the email address for castlegregory parish where I understand sean sheehy is parish priest)


bishopshouse@eircom.net

I did. 

Try this?


----------



## thedaras (17 Dec 2009)

Maybe we should despense with jurys altogether and just get sheehy to let us know what the verdict is..


----------



## thedaras (17 Dec 2009)

list of emails for those whom wish to express their disgust at sheehys behavior;
taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie, bertie.ahern@oireachtas.ie, michael.ahern@oireachtas.ie, noel.ahern@oireachtas.ie, bernard.allen@oireachtas.ie, chris.andrews@oireachtas.ie, barry.andrews@oireachtas.ie, sean.ardagh@oireachtas.ie, bobby.aylward@oireachtas.ie, james.bannon@oireachtas.ie, sean.barrett@oireachtas.ie, joe.behan@oireachtas.ie, john.browne@oireachtas.ie, aine.brady@oireachtas.ie, cyprian.brady@oireachtas.ie, johnny.brady@oireachtas.ie, pat.breen@oireachtas.ie, thomas.p.broughan@oireachtas.ie, niall.blaney@oireachtas.ie, richard.bruton@oireachtas.ie, ulick.burke@oireachtas.ie, joan.burton@oireachtas.ie, catherine.byrne@oireachtas.ie, thomas.byrne@oireachtas.ie, niall.collins@oireachtas.ie, pat.carey@oireachtas.ie, joe.carey@oireachtas.ie, deirdre.clune@oireachtas.ie, dara.calleary@oireachtas.ie, margaret.conlon@oireachtas.ie, paul.connaughton@oireachtas.ie, sean.connick@oireachtas.ie, mary.coughlan@oireachtas.ie, michael.creed@oireachtas.ie, joe.costello@oireachtas.ie, simon.coveney@oireachtas.ie, brian.lenihan@oireachtas.ie, seymour.crawford@oireachtas.ie, noel.coonan@oireachtas.ie, john.cregan@oireachtas.ie, lucinda.creighton@oireachtas.ie, jimmy.devins@oireachtas.ie, mary.hanafin@oireachtas.ie, john.curran@oireachtas.ie, michael.darcy@oireachtas.ie, john.deasy@oireachtas.ie, jimmy.deenihan@oireachtas.ie, ciaran.cuffe@oireachtas.ie, noel.dempsey@oireachtas.ie, timmy.dooley@oireachtas.ie, andrew.doyle@oireachtas.ie, bernard.durkan@oireachtas.ie, damien.english@oireachtas.ie, michael.fitzpatrick@oireachtas.ie, frank.fahey@oireachtas.ie, frank.feighan@oireachtas.ie, martin.ferris@oireachtas.ie, michael.finneran@oireachtas.ie, olwyn.enright@oireachtas.ie, charles.flanagan@oireachtas.ie, terence.flanagan@oireachtas.ie, sean.fleming@oireachtas.ie, beverley.flynn@oireachtas.ie, paul.gogarty@oireachtas.ie, john.gormley@oireachtas.ie, martin.cullen@oireachtas.ie, micheal.martin@oireachtas.ie, noel.grealish@oireachtas.ie, eamon.gilmore@oireachtas.ie, mary.harney@oireachtas.ie, brendan.howlin@oireachtas.ie, brian.hayes@oireachtas.ie, tom.hayes@oireachtas.ie, Jackie.Healy.Rae@oireachtas.ie, michael.higgins@oireachtas.ie, maire.hoctor@oireachtas.ie, philip.hogan@oireachtas.ie, sean.haughey@oireachtas.ie, paul.kehoe@oireachtas.ie, billy.kelleher@oireachtas.ie, peter.kelly@oireachtas.ie, brendan.kenneally@oireachtas.ie, michael.kennedy@oireachtas.ie, enda.kenny@oireachtas.ie, eamon.ryan@oireachtas.ie, tom.kitt@oireachtas.ie, michael.kitt@oireachtas.ie, seamus.kirk@oireachtas.ie, george.lee@oireachtas.ie, brian.lenihan@oireachtas.ie, conor.lenihan@oireachtas.ie, michael.lowry@oireachtas.ie, kathleen.lynch@oireachtas.ie, tom.mcellistrim@oireachtas.ie, martin.mansergh@oireachtas.ie, minister@dfa.ie, padraic.mccormack@oireachtas.ie, jim.mcdaid@oireachtas.ie, ciaran.lynch@oireachtas.ie, shane.mcentee@oireachtas.ie, dinny.mcginley@oireachtas.ie, mattie.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie, michael.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie, finian.mcgrath@oireachtas.ie, brendan.smith@oireachtas.ie, john.moloney@oireachtas.ie, joe.mchugh@oireachtas.ie, liz.mcmanus@oireachtas.ie, olivia.mitchell@oireachtas.ie, john.mcguinness@oireachtas.ie, arthur.morgan@oireachtas.ie, michael.moynihan@oireachtas.ie, michael.mulcahy@oireachtas.ie, denis.naughten@oireachtas.ie, sean.ofearghail@oireachtas.ie, mj.nolan@oireachtas.ie, michael.noonan@oireachtas.ie, caoimhghin.ocaolain@oireachtas.ie, eamon.ocuiv@oireachtas.ie, batt.okeeffe@oireachtas.ie, daniel.neville@oireachtas.ie, aengus.osnodaigh@oireachtas.ie, darragh.obrien@oireachtas.ie, charlie.oconnor@oireachtas.ie, kieran.odonnell@oireachtas.ie, john.odonoghue@oireachtas.ie, fergus.odowd@oireachtas.ie, noel.oflynn@oireachtas.ie, rory.ohanlon@oireachtas.ie, willie.odea@oireachtas.ie, jim.okeeffe@oireachtas.ie, ned.okeeffe@oireachtas.ie, john.omahony@oireachtas.ie, maureen.osullivan@oireachtas.ie, sean.power@oireachtas.ie, brian.oshea@oireachtas.ie, christy.osullivan@oireachtas.ie, jan.osullivan@oireachtas.ie, willie.penrose@oireachtas.ie, john.perry@oireachtas.ie, mary.orourke@Oireachtas.ie, peter.power@oireachtas.ie, ruairi.quinn@oireachtas.ie, pat.rabbitte@oireachtas.ie, james.reilly@oireachtas.ie, alan.shatter@oireachtas.ie, dick.roche@oireachtas.ie, eamon.ryan@oireachtas.ie, trevor.sargent@oireachtas.ie, eamon.scanlon@oireachtas.ie, michael.ring@oireachtas.ie, pj.sheehan@oireachtas.ie, sean.sherlock@oireachtas.ie, tom.sheahan@oireachtas.ie, roisin.shortall@oireachtas.ie, emmet.stagg@oireachtas.ie, david.stanton@oireachtas.ie, billy.timmins@oireachtas.ie, joanna.tuffy@oireachtas.ie, noel.treacy@oireachtas.ie, mary.upton@oireachtas.ie, michael.woods@oireachtas.ie, jack.wall@oireachtas.ie, mary.wallace@oireachtas.ie, marya.white@oireachtas.ie, leo.varadkar@oireachtas.ie,


----------



## DavyJones (17 Dec 2009)

sending emails is useless, one can decide not to open it. I'd like the Father to explain to me how he finds his support justified when I ring him.


----------



## MandaC (18 Dec 2009)

I have asked Father Sheehy's superior for an explanation.

That would be the person to ask.


----------



## Lex Foutish (18 Dec 2009)

I've never seen such unity on AAM about any topic. Well done everyone here!!!  I wish someone would contact the lady in question and ask her to log onto this thread and see what ordinary people think about the situation.

Like Ron, I wanted to post about it yesterday. Like him, I couldn't get my head around it.

Go back to Page 1 of this thread and read Purple's post. It's superb! It's surely a contender for Post of the Year on AAM.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

DavyJones said:


> sending emails is useless, one can decide not to open it. I'd like the Father to explain to me how he finds his support justified when I ring him.


 
 There is such a thing as a public outcry so disagree that sending emails is useless..

You would have to be pretty mad to think that each and every email is opened,the fact is that with the amount of emails going through to them,they can see there is a real issue thats needs to be dealt with.

Good luck with getting through to him, I tried his number many many times today to no avail..so an email can be a way ( a start ) to get the public opinion known to as many as possible.

Anyhow ,I dont think slagging off other peoples efforts is going to help,do whatever you want to do,It was just a suggestion on my part for people that were looking to do something.You may think it useless but to have made my opinion on this known was important to me.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Lex Foutish said:


> I've never seen such unity on AAM about any topic. Well done everyone here!!!  I wish someone would contact the lady in question and ask her to log onto this thread and see what ordinary people think about the situation.
> 
> Like Ron, I wanted to post about it yesterday. Like him, I couldn't get my head around it.
> 
> Go back to Page 1 of this thread and read Purple's post. It's superb! It's surely a contender for Post of the Year on AAM.


 
Plus 1.


----------



## Lex Foutish (18 Dec 2009)

thedaras said:


> Plus 1.


You've done some good posting on this thread yourself, Thedaras.


----------



## bullworth (18 Dec 2009)

truthseeker said:


> They should definitely be named and shamed. They are as bad as the sexual offender.



Thats the least the media should be doing. There should be photographs and background stories about each and every one of those people who shook the sex offenders hand.

One  thing we can do is try to make sure the sex offender doesnt get out of prison early on Parole. Considering the horrific circumstances and the inbred ignorant nature of many locals who I heard even refused to serve the victim and her father in local bars after the court case; it would be extremely bad for the victim to have him strutting around town acting hard done by.

Does anyone know how we can do this ? When a parole hearing comes up in  a year or two, how do  know about it and how do we make sure he doesnt get his freedom before the full sentence is served  ?


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2009)

DavyJones said:


> Talk is cheap. What will we do about it?


 
We can fight it everytime we meet it in Ireland, it is the great unspoken truth of what Irish people really believe, that is to say a certain section of society that has a hatred of women, I have fought this all my life, this viewpoint, it's really difficult to do especially if you do it consistently as I do.

I know it's not all men, there are good men, but there sure are an awful lot of men who seem to hate women, particular Churchmen of the Roman Catholic type. There are also women who support the men in this viewpoint which I can never understand.

By taking about it on here, by recognising it, by seeing Irish society for what it is and bringing up our children to know this, and to know what is right and what is wrong. To hope for a better future, for a more mature Irish society, to hope that the young people who've during the boom had good jobs and were better educated and hope that they will bring us a new Ireland. 

Irish society is really really sick still, sometimes I can't believe it, that we are 2009 and still it goes on. How can a person send hate mail to a victim, how can they write it, post it, live with doing that. How can a publican refuse to serve a sexual assalt victim, how can an ordinary person ask a victim why she would bring a court case, really how could one human being say to a woman 'why are you bringing this case against a fine fellow like Danny Foley', how do you actually do that? How do you pick up a phone and call a women alone in her house 5 or 6 times to scare her because she had the temerity to seek justice?


More concrete action is to not shop in Listowel, to say out loud I will not go to Listowel where men think all women are whores, to say that there is something wrong with the people of Kerry and X and Y place. To say I won't go to Z pub in Listowel because they refused to serve the victim, to name that pub, that shop that person. Fight it in the little things, that's a start.


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

Lex Foutish said:


> I wish someone would contact the lady in question and ask her to log onto this thread and see what ordinary people think about the situation.


 
I emailed a message of support to the Kerry Rape Crisis Centre and included a link to this thread, so hopefully she will see what the people here think.

The email address is:
krcc@eircom.net


----------



## Lex Foutish (18 Dec 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I emailed a message of support to the Kerry Rape Crisis Centre and included a link to this thread, so hopefully she will see what the people here think.
> 
> The email address is:
> krcc@eircom.net


 
Well done, Truthseeker. Nice one!


----------



## Ceist Beag (18 Dec 2009)

Fair play truthseeker. I'd like to think that Irish society is not quite as sick as some people here are making out and that these 50 are a very small minority who don't reflect the vast majority. Certainly the public reaction to this event (both on here and on radio talk shows at least) shows that people are sick at the notion of what happened in Listowel so I'm hopeful that this shows we are a society who have changed for the better but obviously we still have a way to go!


----------



## Wiggles (18 Dec 2009)

I have taken the post from thedaras and sent it to people in my address book. I am encouraging them to email the two addresses and forward the mail on as well. Maybe we can try and create an email chain to flood the addresses.

I also think that sending an email is not pointless if it displays a sense of public outcry.


----------



## sam h (18 Dec 2009)

Thanks for the email link, I've sent a letter of support to her as I think it is important that she realises that most people do not this this was acceptable behaviour.

I'm still amazed how a person who is in custody can be approached so easily and the gardai did not stop this "show".  

In one way it has backfired on Danny Foley as it has highlighted the case on a national level that never would have happened if this show of support hadn't happened.  It probably would have just been a two liner on page 7 or 8, hardly anyone would have read it and less would remember his name - whereas no we all know who is is and what he did (as convicted by a group of his peers).


----------



## csirl (18 Dec 2009)

Remember the Kerry babies scandal, and now this. What kind of people live in Kerry? How could such a sick society develop?


----------



## Sunny (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> The visuals of this case are unedifying but, as is often the case, could blame not be shared?
> 
> Not necessarily in this case but it's often a modern tale of two inebriated people who engage in sexual activity. Feelings of regret from the female participant ensue and rather than take personal responsibility for her own actions she decides to seek retribution through the courts. This is symptomatic of the pervasive 'blame mentaility' in society today.
> 
> Does anyone really know what happened in this particular case? Just listened to the interview with the convict's brother and the media may have sensationalised the story.


 
From what I hear, if anything the media played the details down. There is no sharing of blame. He was convicted of sexual assault on the back of damming evidence.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> The visuals of this case are unedifying but, as is often the case, could blame not be shared?
> 
> Not necessarily in this case but it's often a modern tale of two inebriated people who engage in sexual activity. Feelings of regret from the female participant ensue and rather than take personal responsibility for her own actions she decides to seek retribution through the courts. This is symptomatic of the pervasive 'blame mentaility' in society today.
> 
> *Does anyone really know what happened in this particular case?* Just listened to the interview with the convict's brother and the media may have sensationalised the story.


 
Yes a man was accused of a crime, pleaded not gulity and was found guilty by a dury of his peers........


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> The visuals of this case are unedifying but, as is often the case, could blame not be shared?
> 
> Not necessarily in this case but it's often a modern tale of two inebriated people who engage in sexual activity. Feelings of regret from the female participant ensue and rather than take personal responsibility for her own actions she decides to seek retribution through the courts. This is symptomatic of the pervasive 'blame mentaility' in society today.
> 
> Does anyone really know what happened in this particular case? Just listened to the interview with the convict's brother and the media may have sensationalised the story.


 
This post demeans women who have suffered a sexual attack. I would think the number of women who go the route of assigning blame where there is none is far far lower than the number who simply do not report an attack for shame or fear. Persuing justice for a rape or sexual assualt in this country is a demeaning, difficult process for the victim, I simply cannot see many women deciding to do so just because they had feelings of regret afterwards.


----------



## Sunny (18 Dec 2009)

truthseeker said:


> This post demeans women who have suffered a sexual attack. I would think the number of women who go the route of assigning blame where there is none is far far lower than the number who simply do not report an attack for shame or fear. Persuing justice for a rape or sexual assualt in this country is a demeaning, difficult process for the victim, I simply cannot see many women deciding to do so just because they had feelings of regret afterwards.


 
I agree. Its that type of attitude that must be stamped out.


----------



## BoscoTalking (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> No woman _deserves_ to be sexually assaulted but if she is under the influence of alcohol she is exposing herself to increased risk and must take some of the blame herself.


not so. Its as simple as that.  you mention woman instead of person - why?


----------



## Sunny (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Of course there is blame on the male's part but what sanction is there against the female who is inebriated to the extent where she is not compos mentis? That in itself is a criminal offence and rightly so.
> 
> No woman _deserves_ to be sexually assaulted but if she is under the influence of alcohol she is exposing herself to increased risk and must take some of the blame herself.


 
Are you being serious??? Even as a man I find that offensive.


----------



## foxylady (18 Dec 2009)

Purple said:


> This happened on the same day that a priest was found guilty of over 70 counts of serious sexual assault on a young boy. The judge deemed it a suitable punishment that he spend 18 months in prison.
> 
> What the hell is wrong with us? Why are sex crimes treated as a misdemeanour?
> Rape is second only to murder as a crime and in many cases worse than some murders. People found guilty of the rape of a young child should face 15-20 years in prison at the very minimum. The age of the accused should never be use to mitigate the severity of the sentence.
> ...


 
These people should be given the death sentence


----------



## VOR (18 Dec 2009)

As a human, I find it offensive. Whether a man or woman, this is sickening. 

Please join this support page for the victim
[broken link removed]

3,000 members so far.


----------



## Ceist Beag (18 Dec 2009)

This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Yorky, come out of the dark ages will ya? Would you consider it a criminal offence if a lad gets trollied drunk at a Christmas party and can't remember what they did the next day? If so there are a lot of criminals walking the streets!
As Sunny said, your attitude is offensive.


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Of course there is blame on the male's part but what sanction is there against the female who is inebriated to the extent where she is not compos mentis? That in itself is a criminal offence and rightly so.
> 
> No woman _deserves_ to be sexually assaulted but if she is under the influence of alcohol she is exposing herself to increased risk and must take some of the blame herself.


 
I sincerely hope you are not being serious. A woman has as much entitlement as a man to get inebriated if she wishes and not be at increased *risk* of sexual assualt because of it.

It is not a criminal offence to become inebriated.

Would you think it was ok for a man to be beaten with a baseball bat - just because he was drunk?

Let me be clear on this:
It is *NEVER*, under *ANY* circumstances, ok for someone to sexually assualt someone else. No victim of sexual assualt can be *BLAMED* for bringing it upon themselves.

That attitude is ignorant, offensive and quite franky - disgusting.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> The visuals of this case are unedifying but, as is often the case, could blame not be shared?
> 
> Not necessarily in this case but it's often a modern tale of two inebriated people who engage in sexual activity. Feelings of regret from the female participant ensue and rather than take personal responsibility for her own actions she decides to seek retribution through the courts. This is symptomatic of the pervasive 'blame mentaility' in society today.
> 
> Does anyone really know what happened in this particular case? Just listened to the interview with the convict's brother and the media may have sensationalised the story.


 
Absolutly disgusted with this post.

I know what happened in this case.

A court found foley GUILTY of a sex offence and sentenced him to seven years.

Any other information you may require is in my opinion.,voyeauism.
Glad to see other posters condeming this post .


----------



## MANTO (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> No woman _deserves_ to be sexually assaulted but if she is under the influence of alcohol she is exposing herself to increased risk and must take some of the blame herself.


 
Are you for real?????????


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> No woman _deserves_ to be sexually assaulted but if she is under the influence of alcohol she is exposing herself to increased risk and must take some of the blame herself.


 
This, btw, is the attitude that has caused the public outcry on this incident in the first place.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I sincerely hope you are not being serious. A woman has as much entitlement as a man to get inebriated if she wishes and not be at increased *risk* of sexual assualt because of it.
> 
> It is not a criminal offence to become inebriated.
> 
> ...


Excellent post and couldnt agree with you more.
Yorky should consider withdrawing that post.


----------



## mathepac (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> ...  Just listened to the interview with the convict's brother and the media may have sensationalised the story.


I have to say that I find the tenor of your post deeply offensive. The strongest comments on this case were made by the judge in his pre-sentence summing up and I see no accusations of sensationalisation being levelled at him.

In the linked Irish Times article below, the Bishop of Kerry apologises and both the Prison Service and the Courts Service unsurprisingly disclaim any and all responsibility for what happened in court, with the Prison Service apparently answering a question they were not asked.

I have written to the Minister for Justice and to local TDs asking for an explanation for the disgusting court scenes associated with this brave woman's case, asking specifically what the responsibilities of the Guards, Prison Service and Courts Service are in relation to the public having contact with and access to a convict in custody in open court.

I'm surprised, given that so many people after the event seem to have suspected something was afoot, that no-one brought any of the goings-on in the court and its environs to the attention of the presiding judge.

[broken link removed]


----------



## bb12 (18 Dec 2009)

thedaras said:


> Excellent post and couldnt agree with you more.
> Yorky should consider withdrawing that post.



+1. That is one of the most disturbing posts I've ever read on this site. Offensive is too mild a word for it.


----------



## dereko1969 (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> The visuals of this case are unedifying but, as is often the case, could blame not be shared?
> 
> Not necessarily in this case but it's often a modern tale of two inebriated people who engage in sexual activity. Feelings of regret from the female participant ensue and rather than take personal responsibility for her own actions she decides to seek retribution through the courts. This is symptomatic of the pervasive 'blame mentaility' in society today.
> 
> Does anyone really know what happened in this particular case? Just listened to the interview with the convict's brother and the media may have sensationalised the story.


 
Do you have any female family members at all? So you think any female who has been raped or sexually assaulted shares part of the blame if they had been drinking? Are you going to say next if she was wearing a short skirt she was also asking for it?

This really is one of the most disgusting posts I've read on here. You've been building up to this it seems to me for a while, you should really take a good look at yourself.

And I don't agree with people asking you to withdraw it, you should be held accountable for what you've written and not have it exorcised from the record.


----------



## Latrade (18 Dec 2009)

I have absolutely nothing productive to add simply because I am left dumbfounded by the actions of these people. Not only their actions, but their response to the media and their subsequent statements. I just don't, don't know. I actually cannot process what's happened to any logical or rational thought other than extreme anger and disillusionment with my fellow human beings.

There are still apologists for the clergy and everything we've learned there, so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised. But to hear the latest statement refer to the victim as the "so-called victim", it verges on anger overload that I regress to a catatonic state of rage.

I did some work for the KRCC a couple of years back, their work is fantastic and against the strongest odds and hindrences too. It's a small miracle that the case proceeded about let alone resulted in a conviction in the first place without this disgrace.

It's sad that no amount of media attention, facebook groups, radio phone-ins are going to change their minds. If the evidence put in front of the courts couldn't open their eyes, then nothing else will.

My only last thought is that if you think this right now is bad, wait until he's released. We all know he's going to get a "hero's" welcome.


----------



## Husker (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> I think my post has been misinterpreted. I _meant _that due to the intrinsic predatory nature of the male species under the influence of alcohol to lessen restraint, reason and inihibition, if a person - in this case a woman who is normally physically weaker - is under the influence of the same substance then quite obviously they are exposing themselves to increased risk.
> 
> BTW, inebriation is not acceptable for either gender.
> 
> I don't support the convicted man but this case may be more complex than the simplistic, gingoistic way it is being commented on due to the fact that _both_ parties may have been inebriated.


 
I don't think your post was misinterpreted at all.  In fact, you have just confirmed above what people understood you were saying. Disgusting attitude.


----------



## MANTO (18 Dec 2009)

So basically if both parties were sober it would be a diffferent story??


----------



## Caveat (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> drunken intimacy.


 

WTF?!

You do know there is a massive difference between 'drunken intimacy' and sexual assault - or do you?


----------



## MANTO (18 Dec 2009)

I am actually stunned..... I dont think he can apply any logic to his arguement...scary!


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> I think my post has been misinterpreted. I _meant _that due to the intrinsic predatory nature of the male species under the influence of alcohol to lessen restraint, reason and inihibition, if a person - in this case a woman who is normally physically weaker - is under the influence of the same substance then quite obviously they are exposing themselves to increased risk.
> 
> BTW, inebriation is not acceptable for either gender.
> 
> I don't support the convicted man but this case may be more complex than the simplistic, gingoistic way it is being commented on due to the fact that _both_ parties may have been inebriated.


 
*I and lots of others here dont believe we have misinterpreted your post.*

*As another poster just said,you have confirmed it by posting the above.*

*Maybe you would like women to wear burkas to save these poor unfortunate predatory males you speak of..*

*why dont you try banning women from drinking alcohol just in case some of those males you speak of get any ideas.*

*Cop on to yourself,you in my opinion are a disgrace.*


----------



## Sunny (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> I think my post has been misinterpreted. I _meant _that due to the intrinsic predatory nature of the male species under the influence of alcohol to lessen restraint, reason and inihibition, if a person - in this case a woman who is normally physically weaker - is under the influence of the same substance then quite obviously they are exposing themselves to increased risk.
> 
> BTW, inebriation is not acceptable for either gender.
> 
> I don't support the convicted man but this case may be more complex than the simplistic, gingoistic way it is being commented on due to the fact that _both_ parties may have been inebriated.


 
Oh thats all right then. 

I am a member of a male species and I certainly don't have a instrinsic predatory nature when I am sober or drunk so speak for yourself there.


----------



## Howitzer (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Alright so man gets drunk and woman gets drunk and then engage in drunken intimacy. Result: man is _totally _to blame.
> 
> Right.


Have you read any of the reports? When was the last time you carried a woman to a skip to engage in drunken intimacy?


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Here is the STATEMENT BY JAN O’SULLIVAN TD
Labour Party Spokesperson on Health
Thursday, 17 December, 2009

COURTROOM GESTURES OF SUPPORT FOR MAN CONVICTED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT
‘SHAMEFUL’.


The manner in which up to 50 people are reported to have queued up in a
Tralee courtroom to shake the hand a man who had just been convicted of a
vicious sexual assault was shameful and indicates that there are some
people who are still not prepared to treat sexual crimes with the
seriousness they merit.

I am sure that the majority of decent people of Listowel were as repulsed
as the rest of the country at this show of support for a convicted sex
offender

We already know that many victims are reluctant to report rapes because
going to court can be such an ordeal. There is a danger that what happened
in the courtroom in Tralee will make victims even more fearful

People who are convicted of serious sexual offences should be shunned and
not treated as some sort of victim or even a hero.

I believe that this case emphasises the need for an educational campaign to
make society aware of the shocking damage that can be done by rape and
sexual assault.


----------



## Purple (18 Dec 2009)

Sunny said:


> Oh thats all right then.
> 
> I am a member of a male species and I certainly don't have a instrinsic predatory nature when I am sober or drunk so speak for yourself there.


No, maybe he has a point; if a man assault a woman it's her fault for being attractive. She should cover up her hair and face, only go out with her father/ husband/ brother or adult son and when doing so walk 3 steps behind them with her eyes cast downward in case she accidentally sets some innocent young man into a frenzy of sexual desire.

Yep, maybe that's the solution. 

... or maybe as adults we have the right to say "no".


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Alright so man gets drunk and woman gets drunk and then engage in drunken intimacy. Result: man is _totally _to blame.
> 
> Right.


 
There is a difference between drunken intimacy and sexual assualt. If you are confused about the difference between these two events I suggest you educate yourself as a matter of urgency.


----------



## AgathaC (18 Dec 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I emailed a message of support to the Kerry Rape Crisis Centre and included a link to this thread, so hopefully she will see what the people here think.
> 
> The email address is:
> krcc@eircom.net


 
Thanks for email address truthseeker. I have sent a message of support just now.


----------



## starlite68 (18 Dec 2009)

i heard his brother being interviewed on newstalk 106 this morning..he came acoss as more levelheaded then the priest that was on yesterday,he said it was wrong that the woman was being snubbed and refused service in some local shops ect...but that his first consern had to be for his brother and family at the moment.


----------



## bb12 (18 Dec 2009)

what's wrong with this site? you're not allowed talk about a head cold because of medical issues, but it's ok for someone to come on here and basically says it's a women's own fault that she gets raped/sexually assulted? can the mods not remove the offensive posts or close the thread???


----------



## Ceist Beag (18 Dec 2009)

bb12 said:


> what's wrong with this site? you're not allowed talk about a head cold because of medical issues, but it's ok for someone to come on here and basically says it's a women's own fault that she gets raped/sexually assulted? can the mods not remove the offensive posts or close the thread???



Why close the thread or remove those posts? The poster is being pilloried for their views, which in my view is far better than trying to sweep it all under the carpet as if to suggest this view doesn't exist.


----------



## Sunny (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Poster _must _be a 'he'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You are shocked and dismayed?? Your views are disgusting and I worry about any woman who may find themselves in your company.


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky has a point when he says that if a women is drunk she is at increased risk of attack. That she should not be at increased risk would be an ideal society but we do not live in anything near an ideal society. I as a female would not walk down the street at night on my own fully clothed, because I know that I increase the risk to myself of an attack. Men are stronger than women and some men are predatory. It doesn't just apply to women of course, some men prey on other men. Biologically it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, and in any case he would nearly always be able to overpower her.

Where I take issue with Yorky is in the post where he states that could blame be shared in this particular case.  This is a case where the men plied the drunk women with more drink, she stated she was sick from drink and on CCTV camera he draged her to a skip, which he denied many times until he was shown the TV image, he only got caught because the police came upon the scene and only went to court because the women was strong enough to take the case.  Yorky you should read what the judge said about this sexual predator if you are in any doubt as to the motives of this case.  I think the judge very very clearly spelt it out.


----------



## Sunny (18 Dec 2009)

Bronte said:


> Yorky has a point when he says that if a women is drunk she is at increased risk of attack. That she should not be at increased risk would be an ideal society but we do not live in anything near an ideal society. I as a female would not walk down the street at night on my own fully clothed, because I know that I increase the risk to myself of an attack. Men are stronger than women and some men are predatory. It doesn't just apply to women of course, some men prey on other men. Biologically it's impossible for a woman to rape a man, and in any case he would nearly always be able to overpower her.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Poster _must _be a 'he'.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Having read the above post..

I for one am happy that its your last post on the subject...


----------



## bb12 (18 Dec 2009)

Ceist Beag said:


> Why close the thread or remove those posts? The poster is being pilloried for their views, which in my view is far better than trying to sweep it all under the carpet as if to suggest this view doesn't exist.



would would happen if people came on here sporting Nazi/racist views etc? The above posts were so out of line that i'm sure they would have a deep impact and cause undue stress on any individual who read them who had experienced abuse/assault/rape previously imo.


----------



## Bronte (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> 3) Why are decent law-abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour - from groups of sportsmen to armies - capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity?
> 
> .


 
I've often wondered that myself and it is a valid thing to discuss but not on this particular thread because it refers to one specific clear cut case.


----------



## roland (18 Dec 2009)

Sad sad story - it's almost so bizarre that I can't help thinking there is something else to this story.  But I can only go on the facts given and it is chilling to read them.  

The discussion seems to have drifted a bit into where the line for personal responsibility lies.  I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that.  But, I think we all (except Yorky??) agree that in no circumstances whatsoever is a victim to share blame where a sexual assault takes place.  It is deeply repugnant to suggest otherwise.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Originally Posted by *Yorky* 
_3) Why are decent law-abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour - from groups of sportsmen to armies - capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity? _

_*WE are all CAPBALE  of many things including rape,muder etc,but most of us are normal decent law abiding people..*_
_*just because we are capable of doing something doesnt mean we should do so given the opportunity.*_

_*Decent law abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour would NOT be capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity.
*_


----------



## csirl (18 Dec 2009)

> I have written to the Minister for Justice and to local TDs asking for an explanation for the disgusting court scenes associated with this brave woman's case, asking specifically what the responsibilities of the Guards, Prison Service and Courts Service are in relation to the public having contact with and access to a convict in custody in open court.


 
There is no such thing as a defendants dock in jury courts in Ireland - having a defendant secured in a dock is a feature of the British justice system. At most, there may be some seating reserved for the defendant on one side of the courtroom, but there is little in the way of physical separation from the public etc. In some circumstances, particularly where the defendant is on bail (and so not in custody), they can sit among the public. If the defendant is in custody, they'll sit in the defendant's reserved seating and Prison Officers will sit nearby to ensure they dont do a runner. Handcuffs or any other restraining devices are not permitted.

The reason being is that in Ireland, all defendants in court are persumed innocent unless they are found guilty at the conclusion of the case. If the defendant is in a secure dock, handcuffs etc. it may influence the jury into to thinking the defendant is guilty as it gives the impression that the person is a criminal - remembering that they are not a criminal until they are convicted and have the right to be persumed innocent unless proven otherwise.

Now, its different in certain non-jury Courts. As there is no jury in a non-jury court, there are no concerns re: influencing the jury. In non-jury custody District Courts, you will some times see an enclosed defendants area physically separated from the public etc. by a large toughen glass screen. You'll also see this in the non-jury higher courts (where you have 3 Judges rather than a jury) that handle terrorism and serious crime such as the Special Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal.


----------



## Caveat (18 Dec 2009)

@ thedaras & Yorky

...furthermore, to add further controversy perhaps to the thread, many sportsmen and army members are hardly the best example. 

Very high proportion of thugs make up their ranks in many cases IMO & E.


----------



## TreeTiger (18 Dec 2009)

Yorky said:


> Of course there is blame on the male's part but what sanction is there against the female who is inebriated to the extent where she is not compos mentis? That in itself is a criminal offence and rightly so.
> 
> No woman _deserves_ to be sexually assaulted but if she is under the influence of alcohol she is exposing herself to increased risk and must take some of the blame herself.





Yorky said:


> I think my post has been misinterpreted. I _meant _that due to the intrinsic predatory nature of the male species under the influence of alcohol to lessen restraint, reason and inihibition, if a person - in this case a woman who is normally physically weaker - is under the influence of the same substance then quite obviously they are exposing themselves to increased risk. ...


Your post was not misinterpreted. You were trying (unsuccessfully) to backtrack.



Yorky said:


> Alright so man gets drunk and woman gets drunk and then engage in drunken intimacy. Result: man is _totally _to blame.
> Right.


I would like to nominate this for AAM idiotic post of the year.
Yorky, it is horrific that you cannot tell the difference between intimacy and rape.



Yorky said:


> This is my last post on this ...


Good!


----------



## sam h (18 Dec 2009)

csirl said:


> There is no such thing as a defendants dock in jury courts in Ireland - having a defendant secured in a dock is a feature of the British justice system. At most, there may be some seating reserved for the defendant on one side of the courtroom, but there is little in the way of physical separation from the public etc. In some circumstances, particularly where the defendant is on bail (and so not in custody), they can sit among the public. If the defendant is in custody, they'll sit in the defendant's reserved seating and Prison Officers will sit nearby to ensure they dont do a runner. Handcuffs or any other restraining devices are not permitted.
> 
> The reason being is that in Ireland, all defendants in court are persumed innocent unless they are found guilty at the conclusion of the case. If the defendant is in a secure dock, handcuffs etc. it may influence the jury into to thinking the defendant is guilty as it gives the impression that the person is a criminal - remembering that they are not a criminal until they are convicted and have the right to be persumed innocent unless proven otherwise.
> .


 
But my understanding is that he  was already conviced of the offence and the court hearing was to do with sentencing.  Therefore is has already been found guilty and was in police custody.  I find it amazing that member of the general public (or 50 of them in this case) can walk to to a conviceted person.  What if someone passed him something?  What is someone who supported the victim attacked him (he would be suing the state more than likely).


----------



## sam h (18 Dec 2009)

TreeTiger said:


> Yorky, it is horrific that you cannot tell the difference between intimacy and rape.


 
He was coinviced of sexual assult, not rape......but you point still stand, there is a huge difference between a druken intimacy and being left almost unconcious, covered in cuts and bruises & naked from the the waist down


----------



## csirl (18 Dec 2009)

sam h said:


> But my understanding is that he was already conviced of the offence and the court hearing was to do with sentencing. Therefore is has already been found guilty and was in police custody. I find it amazing that member of the general public (or 50 of them in this case) can walk to to a conviceted person. What if someone passed him something? What is someone who supported the victim attacked him (he would be suing the state more than likely).


 
You may be right. Was this a pure sentencing hearing, or was the verdict given the same day? The other issue is that very few courthouses outside the main cities have high security facilities & rural politicians dont like the cases to be moved to one of the cities.


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

csirl said:


> You may be right. Was this a pure sentencing hearing, or was the verdict given the same day?


 
Sentencing only, he had been convicted 2 weeks previously:


----------



## Liamos (18 Dec 2009)

Roland - I don't want to get off the point, but you say I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that. 

This is the same argument Yorky is using that the victim must take some of the blame. Am I not allowed walk down O'Connell St at night with money in my pocket?


----------



## RMCF (18 Dec 2009)

I love all the people on the phone-ins yesterday getting really angry about this story. I may be making a generalisation here, but you could just tell some of the people who phoned in would be the 'altar rail kissers' and who can't see no wrong in the Church and all its recent sins.

And talking generally about sexual crimes, why is it that tens of thousands are prepared to take to the streets to protest about losing a few % off their wages yet when hundreds and possibly thousands of adult priests rape and abuse children there isn't a single march anywhere in this country?

Sorry for going off tangent.


----------



## sam h (18 Dec 2009)

Liamos said:


> Roland - I don't want to get off the point, but you say I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that.
> 
> This is the same argument Yorky is using that the victim must take some of the blame. Am I not allowed walk down O'Connell St at night with money in my pocket?


 
But you can't compare the 2 - what if the person had €100 hanging out of his pocket and someone came, took the money & proceeded to beat up the victim. 

You might say they were naive, silly etc for having the money hanging out of their pocket - but would you say they have to accept some the blame for being assulted? Absolutely not !


----------



## Firefly (18 Dec 2009)

RMCF said:


> why is it that tens of thousands are prepared to take to the streets to protest about losing a few % off their wages yet when hundreds and possibly thousands of adult priests rape and abuse children there isn't a single march anywhere in this country?


 
Good point.


----------



## Ron Burgundy (18 Dec 2009)

The priest in question has withdrawn duites in his parish after meeting with the bishop this morning.

A good start, 1 down 49 to go.


----------



## truthseeker (18 Dec 2009)

Liamos said:


> Roland - I don't want to get off the point, but you say I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that.
> 
> This is the same argument Yorky is using that the victim must take some of the blame. Am I not allowed walk down O'Connell St at night with money in my pocket?


 
Theres no comparison here - you may be silly enough to have your money robbed, but if you were then assaulted, would you feel you had attracted the assault?

Personal injury, whether it be a pure physical assault, or a sexual attack - can never be justified by apportioning blame to the victim.


----------



## bb12 (18 Dec 2009)

Bronte said:


> I as a female would not walk down the street at night on my own fully clothed, because I know that I increase the risk to myself of an attack.



I hate this attitude. this is what indoctrines into women that they are the weaker sex and always should play the victim. We should be striving for a society where no woman should be afraid to walk anywhere she wants, whenever she wants. It really annoys me that men are never forced to think about things like this and as long as that is the case it will never be an equal society. Women should be absolutely outraged that society deems it acceptable that they would not be safe walking down a street alone at night. Also I believe that women need to be taught about their own strengths and made to believe in them..there are many women out there who could beat the living daylights out of some of the scumbags who try to attack them.


----------



## Liamos (18 Dec 2009)

I'm not trying to compare the two. Of course a sexual attack is more serious.

I'm just making the point that I think it is wrong to apportion blame to the victim of any crime for the crime committed against them.


----------



## roland (18 Dec 2009)

Liamos said:


> Roland - I don't want to get off the point, but you say I think we would all agree that a victim has to share blame where, for example, they walk down O Connell Street late at night with cash hanging out of their back pocket and get robbed. Of course it is a crime they were robbed, but they surely share some of the blame for that.
> 
> This is the same argument Yorky is using that the victim must take some of the blame. Am I not allowed walk down O'Connell St at night with money in my pocket?



Of course you are allowed to walk down O'Connell St at night with money hanging out of your pocket, but I think you share _some_ blame if you are then robbed.  Similarly if you leave your house with all the doors and windows open, then you share _some_ blame if it is robbed.  Your insurance company will agree with this point of view.

I drew a clear distinction between this and sexual assault.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Caveat said:


> @ thedaras & Yorky
> 
> ...furthermore, to add further controversy perhaps to the thread, many sportsmen and army members are hardly the best example.
> 
> Very high proportion of thugs make up their ranks in many cases IMO & E.


 
Caveat why you putting me in the same sentence as yorky!! What I do to deserve that??
I have in no way agreed with anything at all which was posted by yorky...


----------



## Caveat (18 Dec 2009)

Relax!! 

I was just addressing the post to both of you - I know you both have completely different opinions.  Yorky made the 'point' and I was adding to your answer to it - if you know what I mean.


----------



## MOB (18 Dec 2009)

thedaras said:


> _*Decent law abiding men with no history of sexual misbehaviour would NOT be capable of indulging in gang rape given the opportunity.
> *_



Hmmm.  I am not sure I agree. I don't profess any great knowledge of the mechanics of a gang rape situation;  possibly it is essential that there be one sexual predator to act as a sort of catalyst.  I would, however, be fairly sure that in many, many gang rape situations, there would be men who would never unilaterally involve themselves in a sex attack but who nevertheless participate in the gang attack.


----------



## DavyJones (18 Dec 2009)

thedaras said:


> There is such a thing as a public outcry so disagree that sending emails is useless..
> 
> You would have to be pretty mad to think that each and every email is opened,the fact is that with the amount of emails going through to them,they can see there is a real issue thats needs to be dealt with.
> 
> ...



I didn't mean to offend you and was certainly not slagging off your efforts. I share your disgust and passion on the subect, emails in my opinion are too easy, I have also ring many times today, it was engaged alot. A letter in my opinion is far more effective, send letters through the post, you can't ignore a couple of sacks of mail.


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

MOB said:


> Hmmm. I am not sure I agree. I don't profess any great knowledge of the mechanics of a gang rape situation; possibly it is essential that there be one sexual predator to act as a sort of catalyst. I would, however, be fairly sure that in many, many gang rape situations, there would be men who would never unilaterally involve themselves in a sex attack but who nevertheless participate in the gang attack.


 
Then they would NOT be the 
*Decent law abiding men...*


----------



## thedaras (18 Dec 2009)

Sean sheehy has withdrawn from his duties!!!
Perhaps we the people still have a say????


----------



## MandaC (18 Dec 2009)

thedaras said:


> Sean sheehy has withdrawn from his duties!!!
> Perhaps we the people still have a say????



It is good to see a swift postive reaction from Bishop Murray.  He also apologised on his own behalf and on behalf of the Kerry Diocise, which is what I put in my letter.


----------



## NOAH (18 Dec 2009)

I have emailed my support for that brave person.  I have also noted that the priest has resigned,  does that mean he has been de frocked!!  I doubt it but .....


noah

ps can I say that AAM has to be *applauded*


----------



## DonDub (18 Dec 2009)

MOB said:


> Hmmm.  I am not sure I agree. I don't profess any great knowledge of the mechanics of a gang rape situation;  possibly it is essential that there be one sexual predator to act as a sort of catalyst.  I would, however, be fairly sure that in many, many gang rape situations, there would be men who would never unilaterally involve themselves in a sex attack but who nevertheless participate in the gang attack.



I find your hypothesis puerile and deeply offensive. It plays into the stereotype of men as mindless sexual predators, governed primarily by testosterone. I believe that people who have a strong set of moral values and ethics, will not, under any circumstances, commit criminal acts, just because an individual 'catalyst' does so.
Those without a moral compass (e.g. habitual offenders -including many clergy over the past 60 years) may follow the mob, or be 'catalyzed' into wrongdoing. Those with one, (the vast majority of people, men and women) will not steal,rape or murder....ever.


----------



## ajapale (18 Dec 2009)

This thread is being temporarily closed for consideration by the moderators.


----------

