Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus

Also, for those who think the “journalism” is over the top:

I’m not sure about Ireland, but the European tradition of journalism often excludes the American pretenses of objective reporting. We draw a line between “columnist’s” opinion pieces and “journalist’s” news articles which is absent there. If people want another side of the story, they read another author. They don’t necessarily have authors faking objectivity. In this case, however, the reporter’s scant coverage did herself a disservice, since she failed to make her case why such behavior was so outrageous. Perhaps she was confident that her readers were quite well aware.


16 posted on 12/23/2009 7:46:34 AM PST by dangus (Nah, I'm not really Jim Thompson, but I play him on FR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: dangus
I can understand the lying in the case: the guy is engaged. Doesn't justify the lying, but it is entirely understandable that he wouldn't want his fiancee knowing about his straying on her. Once you start with a lie, you keep lying.

I could understand, had the situation been an "under the influence" rape: he gets drunk and loses his inhibitions, she gets far drunker than she should be, and they go to it (she, during the act, changes her mind -- thus making it a rape...or afterward has remorse -- and tries to justify herself by claiming rape...or is too inebriated to legally give her consent, which, in some jurisdictions, is inherently rape -- I don't know about Ireland).

Here's the thing that gets me about this incident: her side of the story is that (in essence) he slipped her a Mickey. (She claimed that he insisted on buying her a shot and once she took a sip from the Black Russian he bought she began to feel unwell. She told him her mouth was on fire and she wanted a 'WKD' drink which he bought, but she did not finish it.)

Now, as far as I have read, a person who does did not take advantage of the circumstances, he would have premeditated the circumstances. I would have a hard time imagining a person doing that just once. Or doing that on a last minute spree. A person would have to premeditate such an act.

If a guy does that more than once, word will get around among the women, particularly in a small town. And in this circumstance, word would leak to the men as a result of this. In a small town, word is going to get around. I would think that such a word would be used in prosecuting a case and would inhibit such a fraternal send-off by townspeople.

So like I say, something just doesn't add up.

19 posted on 12/23/2009 8:35:27 AM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson