Monday, August 29, 2011

WHO ACTUALLY IS TO BLAME?

A Christchurch "mother" is going off at the Bush Inn Bar for ejecting her 17 yo daughter who was subsequently raped and the alleged rapist has admitted guilt.

What a cluster fuck, pun intended.

Published facts here are:

The "victim" preloaded at home.
She acquired a false/altered ID.
She used that false ID to gain admittance to the last "BOOZE BARN" in the City situated in the heart of scarfy country.
The Tavern refused service and evicted the "victim" for being drunk.
She was abandoned by her"friends" in the Bush Inn carpark, as they then headed off to the Belfast Tavern in search of more "entertainment""
The girl had a sexual encounter with another departing patron, cried rape, and his life is down the toilet in spades.

Now the mother is going off with the equivalent of an AK47 at the Bar staff.

My first impressions in the white heat of the current debate on Liquor control.

Where was the responsible parent when the problem was unfolding prior to the Bar.
Where were her friends as the disaster unfolded.
What were the Bar staff to have done different.
Why were the police not called to deal with a clear case of "drunk and disorderly"
Why was the poor bugger who admitted his guilt not given some skerrick of basic legal advice before he completely ruined his life.
What evidence was gathered as to consent and /or culpability.
Has the "rape victim" been charged with the clear case of using ID fraudulently to gain admittance to the pub.

The guilty here include the Mother,(no mention of the sire), the "friends", and most significantly in my view the transfer of personal responsibility to some other illusory entity than the person who applied the liquor whether by supply or consuming.
So many questions and I will bet heavily that very little will emerge to answer any of my concerns, sadly.

18 comments:

homepaddock said...

If the report is correct the man took advantage of someone who was incapable of giving consent.

That's rape and it's always wrong regardless of the circumstances which might have led to it.

I agree that the mother shouldn't be blaming the pub.

But even with the contributing factors you list which show several people were doing wrong and not taking responsiblity, that is neither an excuse nor justification for rape.

gravedodger said...

HP I have never condoned, accepted or supported sexual intercourse that is unwanted by either party and as the father of two daughters that will never change.
However in the current environment we now have a situation where any two people having a "shag" for want of a more appropriate descriptive, apparently must be very aware and apparently the male's capabilities and decision making are automatically of little consequence in the aftermath.
Whatever the circumstances here, his life is down the toilet whether that is a just outcome or not.
In the alcohol fueled haze, clearly a part of this incident, the question of Rape, not Rape, in the inflexible, arbitrary and black and white of current law, is just a little scary in the light of clear promiscurity allied with testerone laden, alcohol fueled culture inhabited by teenagers.
Your point is fair and entirely valid but I had no intention of justifying rape, never as long as I draw breath, I apologise if that was implied in my post.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure about the rape issue and wonder whether its a moral rather than a criminal issue although I guess he's admitted it so no issues arise. I think its wrong to treat sex as a casual sport and think men should look after women that have got themselves in a shambles rather than shag them but likewise women shouldn't get themselves into a shambles in a public place in the first place. That's not reality though and as we have reduced sex to a sharing of bodily fluids without a relationship its a bit hard to expect good moral behaviour. At the end of the day bad things happen to stupid people. It doesn't "serve her right" but welcome to the big bad real world Doris - don't do it again.

Psycho Milt said...

The answer to your question is "The rapist." It always is the answer to "Who actually is to blame for this rape?", just as "4" is always the answer to "What is 2 + 2?" If you don't intend to justify rape, don't present a different answer.

gravedodger said...

OK Milt but since Arie Smith Voorkamp wasn't really a burglar, just wondering.

Tinman said...

GD, you are correct but you're (We're) not allowed to say that.

Of course it was also the taxi drivers who refused to take a grossly drunken sheila who would probably throw up, almost certainly wouldn't pay and could be guaranteed to go to sleep in the cab and couldn't be awakened until the poor bloody driver could get a female their lest he be charged with sexual assault himself by trying to get the slag out of the car.

I don't know any more than you as far as whether the man was also incapacitated by alcohol or drugs but I know I'd have to be to even think of screwing something in that condition.

Home Paddock only two people were doing wrong during the incident (I won't blame the sheila's friends unless they forced her to get pissed out of her tree) and only the slime and the mother were wrong prior to the newspaper whinge.

dad4justice said...

This dirty rapist deserves 8 years in mainstream lock up. End of story!

The doormen deserve 5 years.

gravedodger said...

That takes care of them D4J now about the 17 yo who fraudulently gained access to the tavern already well lubricated, her ever loving mum and the as far as I know invisible Dad, then there is the unfortunate effort by her friends, they should be in the running for Mates of the week at the very least.
Give us your thoughts on their efforts.

Stevo said...

If the accused was also drunk and out of his tree, why should she not be charged with “rape” using the same reasoning?
On one hand these proceeding are taken on the basis she was incapacitated and unable to give consent. Yet on the other, she is capable of giving testimony that will be used to convict someone of a serious crime.

dad4justice said...

gravedodger - The invisible dad syndrome is the direct fallout from the Klarkula feminist ideology.Sadly it's been adopted by John Key and other male wimps in government and the disgusting judiciary.These robotic greedy sods help to create the scourge of modern society, which is, fatherlessness. Girls need good dads too.Yeah right AirNZ etc..
Where is the role model dad is a question many feminist controlled judges ask themselves as they sentence the criminal standing in the dock.

Things are real bad in Christchurch at present.

dad4justice said...

Oh yes gravedodger, her mates let her down just as much as John Key has done to decent New Zealand parents!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

National are as sick as Labour.

Poor kids will never get a chance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Psycho Milt said...

That takes care of them D4J now about the 17 yo who fraudulently gained access to the tavern already well lubricated, her ever loving mum and the as far as I know invisible Dad, then there is the unfortunate effort by her friends...

I'm struggling to get the point of this, Gravedodger. Buying alcohol under age is a very minor crime, rape on the other hand is a very serious one. Being a crap parent or friend isn't a crime at all, tempting though it might be to try and make it one. There's only one person in this guilty of a crime warranting a prison term, and that's quite likely the very person the rozzers have taken an interest in. By all means point out the colossal parenting fail and the friends who turned out not to be, but the main contender to blame for the serious crime committed has been arrested and charged - the rest is for a jury to sort out.

Stevo: you must have to beat the ladies off with a stick, huh?

Stevo said...

Milt, are you advocating the beating of women or just the beating off part?

If both parties are intoxicated, which one was "raped"?

Lets see you answer that without advocating a double standard. Typically this sort of thing happens with drunken youths. The fact the girl later regrets her actions, should not result in the young man having his life destroyed.

I will also remind you that there is a presumption of innocence, even for rape. How can it be proven, beyond a resonable doubt, if she was indeed so intoxicated? For sure, that may not be the facts of this particular case, but its a relevant question to put out there.

gravedodger said...

Milt, society today views drunks driving as disgusting and unacceptable,until we deliver a similar verdict on youth abusing alcohol instead of what I perceive as a "rite of passage" attitude, ghastly outcomes such as this will continue.
If I have portrayed a condoning or excusing of the rapist in my posts and comments I apologise, that is an entirely false interpretation.
The courts see theft as a servant, and many other crimes as being mitigated by drug, alcohol and gambling addictions or abuse.
What just may have been a drunken fumble that spiraled out of control as opposed to a predatory act of rape is of no consequence now. It is rather sad that his actions while under the influence are condemned while hers are not relevant but in fact make his offending more serious.
I only see another young mans life definitely ruined by the epidemic we are fiddling with in the latest round of superficial changes to society's attitude to binge drinking by the youth of 2011.
Parental control, the actions of the 17 yo girl, her "friends, the tavern staff and the Rapist all carry some share of responsibility but in all probability only one will suffer sanction and the others will ignore their part as society condemns the young man for his part alone.
Is that really justice?

James said...

This is the classic example of a Woman who actively contributes by her own actions to the occurrence of an (alleged) sexual assault

If there really was a rape then yes the guys in the gun...but the "victim" also carries a great deal of responsibility for ending up in that position. This sexist,one sided bullshit that the male is always at fault in these situations needs knocking on the head bigtime. This girl acted with intent throughout the night and is no innocent victim as opposed to say a Woman attacked by an intruder in her own home...

Tinman said...

Gd, I thought you had it but obviously you don't.

The Tavern staff DO NOT carry ANY responsibility.

They didn't get the sheila pissed, they didn't rape it.

They simply obeyed the law requiring them to get the sheila (who got drunk elsewhere remember) off the premises immediately.

Any other action could have seen the pub's license and their jobs in jeopardy.

Based on the report it is mainly the mother and the disgusting, wrong and should be replaced commenting cop who are to blame.

gravedodger said...

Fair cop Tinman it would seem I fell into the Host responsibility meme that many would replace personal responsibility with.
Your life takes you to a place that gives your views on these matters much credence, something the wowsers would have no knowledge of.
I also in my other life find the distasteful side of such disgusting behavior, it aint at all nice.

Stevo said...

Its interesting to think what would have happened had she driven a car on that night, crashed and lost her legs.
Would she be portrayed as a victim? … Well of course not.
Yet no one “deserves” to have their legs cruelly ripped from their bodies, do they? ( Just as no one deserves to be raped) So what is with the double standard here ?
If the rapist tried to use the defence that he was (also) blind drunk and could not give consent, how do you think the Courts may respond?