Not defending the guy - he looks like a creep - In Malaysia (my example) its not unheard of to drive hours to try particular foods. My dad and I once drove to 6 hours to try some famous Nasi Lemak in some random village! I'd happily take a day trip to Galway if there was some wellknown dish/restraunt to try out :) Food is the centrepiece of our culture, we got nothing else really!
Food is the centrepiece of our culture, we got nothing else really!
It's one that doesn't get the same focus as some of your neighbors but Malaysian food is so good. I was lucky enough to be in KL a bit for work years ago, even just a simple chicken rice is so good.
Thats probably one of the first things I'd eat when I go back to visit in March :) ! Actually pretty easy to replicate at home! Hainanese poach chicken and rice cooked with the chicken broth/fat & some ginger! Then stir fry some bean sprouts with a little bit of soya sauce and garnish with dried onions!
The bus companies love the cameras, they need them as evidence in accidents and incidents. If a driver is accused of doing something then they can use video evidence to avoid responsibility.
The drivers like the cameras because they’re generally used to clear them from mad accusations by junkies etc and usually show what’s gone on in accidents, which is generally good for bus drivers.
No one involved has an interest in the cameras being out of action and they all have good reason to keep them in good condition. Having said that, these things are old and stuff just breaks.
I work in legal and I've seen bus cctv footage before! They are needed for motor vehicle accidents and personal injury claims made by passengers against the operating company (e.g. in the event of a collision).
They sometimes record a whole bunch of other data too like latitude, longitude, acceleration and velocity and that can be useful too.
If you are in a public place, its probably covered in CCTV and you are being recorded. Most of it is because people can have accidents and sue the owner/operator of the space. Insurance providers in some cases mandate cctv for the owner/operator to even qualify for public liability insurance.
Na, when I were a lad they went class to class showing video footage off a local bus route. It was a bit legendary as there was a lad who pulled his head back and lurched forward to spit out the window. We all knew who he was and brook out laughing.
It’s actually strictly down to GDPR.
While you can record in public as an individual, the rules change completely for Dublin Bus when it captures, stores, and processes that footage. It becomes "personal data" for which they are the Data Controller.
If they hand you a raw video file, they are sharing the faces, location, and movements of every other passenger on that bus with an unauthorised third party (you). That is technically a data breach.
You can request footage of yourself (a Subject Access Request), but under the Data Protection Act, they are legally obliged to protect the "rights and freedoms" of others. To give you the video legally, they would have to go through frame-by-frame and blur the face of every other person. This is time-consuming and expensive, so they will often refuse or push back unless forced.
The reason the Guards can get it easily is that GDPR has a specific exemption for the "prevention, detection, and investigation of crime." You, as a private citizen, do not have that statutory power.
The victim sounds credible, and the accused seems to be telling lies about everything.
Nonsense about heart meds making him sleep(they don't) and changes his reason for being on the bus from one which was a lie to another which makes no sense and is also almost certainly a lie.
Much respect to the victim, but I'm surprised they got a conviction out of this, it basically boils down to an accusation with 0 actual evidence the act took place.
A "creepy" software developer has been convicted of sexually assaulting a woman by groping her on a Citylink bus to Dublin after he lied about going to a work party.
Lads im not gonna lie, I absolutely think he did it , but I've never seen so little evidence lead to a conviction. Its great to see it because all too often these instances dont get reported , never mind make it into court , its just bizarre that its one word against another and it's held up in court .
Anyways , anyone know what restaurant this muppet thought was worth a 2 hour bus journey
its just bizarre that its one word against another and it's held up
Agree, but does this set a precedent and then eventually leading to false accusations most likely by a disgruntled ex.
yeah, the victim is a witness too. It also appears he lied a lot so she was likely seen as more credible. And she immediately told two people. Outcry witness testimony can be very compelling evidence.
Well the judge decides. And seeing as the guy lied about what he was doing in Galway, lied about being asleep the judge said that his testimony was bs. That leaves one testimony left.
She had a photo of the bloke. Women don't take photos of men on the bus for no reason.
Had the CCTV on the bus been functional, it could have backed either one of them. The fact that her story tracked, and she had texts to her mother and partner that matched her story, was also evidence. It's also why you get and put everything in writing to cover your arse in work.
Are you new to women? We take photos of taxi drivers, men we meet on first dates, creepy men following/harassing us. It's for evidence in case something goes wrong. We do this shit for our own safety. Every woman has a story of a man being a creep to her. 1 in 3 of us have been victims of SA.
I always think this is wild, especially in cases where something allegedly happened decades ago. How can someone be found guilty of something that happened 30 or 40 years ago with no hard evidence, just someone else's testimony?
Not saying these things shouldn't be pursued but it must be very difficult for juries to make a decision on them.
Because witness evidence can be very compelling. The reality of sexual offences is that they overwhelmingly occur in private circumstances. There’s rarely an eye-witness, especially in offences involving children because offenders know that’s the only way they might possibly get away with it. If these types of cases weren’t triable, very few people would ever be convicted of sexual offences.
There’s plenty of ways a defence team can criticise and attempt to pick apart a case involving a single witness in front of a jury. They can criticise their account, of course, point to it being improbable, they can request the Judge give the jury a delay warning, meaning the jury will be told before deliberating that cases which feature a substantial delay between the alleged offence and the reporting of same are more difficult to defend from an accused’s standpoint. They can also separately request that the judge direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the trial on the basis that the evidence isn’t reliable and any conviction arising from same would be unsafe.
The biggest protection for any accused person in this country is the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof. Every jury will be told ad nauseam, even in trials where the evidence seems overwhelming, that they may only convict if they are satisfied on the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Me [M52] I might wanna find that guy 20 odd yrs ago on the Nitelink rubbing my leg while he was having a drunken nap. As I went to move his hand, he grabs my hand, interlocks his fingers with mine and snuggled me (big fella) 😂
Anywho, he woke up/got it together a few seconds later, got defensive straight away and then copped I wasn't his girlfriend who he left go home on another bus 🤭
He was very apologetic with a quick explanation and a few giggles from others, got off the bus and I don't think it was even his stop.
Tho I think I've drooled on a few shoulders on public transport in my time too with "I love you"...Oh shit 👀 (excluding a fish supper and shades)
He definitely is acting incredibly weird... and if I had to bet I'd bet he was guilty but I still can't believe he was considered guilty with no witnesses. I guess it emphasises the point that even if you are innocent (which again... he's probably not) it's important to tell the full truth and appear an honest person.
What reason was he actually going to Galway? Why did he lie to his family? Maybe he was going to see a prostitute/mistress?
What does Amazon have to do with the behavior of one sick individual in this article. People then question why they have been sacked or didn't get a job due to their social media etc. when they suck this shit up without question.
Would ya shut your mouth you pricks. You're no better than the gobshite if you engage in casual racism. Would you call a black person the n word just because he committed a crime? This is the same. Have some cop on
I read something to the effect that the whole Dubai chocolate thing is to overwhelm search results on the whole "porta potty" thing. But Dubai chocolate uses so much pistachio it actually has altered the economy of certain states in Argentina as a result of this manufactured demand.
So one person account stands 100% against another person? Irrespective of Nationality or circumstances, this is a dangerous precedence. Are we not supposed to live in a society where you are not guilty until proven otherwise. Anyone can do this to anyone, if they hate or misjudge.
Full sympathy with girl/women whom with incident happened, but this doesn't sit right with me. I know i will be downvoted to oblivion, but one day your brother, father, husband could be accused of something they didn't commit and lives will be ruined if we continue on this path. Why in 2026 we still dont have 100% end to end CCTV coverage of such public places like bus/trains is beyond me.
I read the article very carefully. Circumstantial evidence, is what is the problem here. And no i am no doubting the woman at all, i am talking about how law is being implemented here and decision is made. No one else saw anything, she doesnt made any noise coz she thought entire bus will be late to airport. I mean, this doesnt sound very strong. Again, if this happened, very sorry for woman, but the way this is being handled is not correct.
I think it's a totally understandable reaction that you wouldn't tell anyone on the bus out of embarrassment/not wanting to put people out. Like have you ever chosen not to do something out of embarrassment/not wanting to cause a scene? Can you imagine announcing to a bus driver with the possibility of others hearing that you've just be touched by a weirdo and then the ensuing kerfuffle that would happen and then the whole bus would be looking at you?
Also, how likely do you think some woman sees a random man on the bus and decides she's going to accuse him of sexual assault? Like in what sense would she benefit from doing so?
Ah no actually I travelled across the country for a meal.
Were you asleep?
Yes.
With your hand covering your face?
If you are being questioned by the Gardai in relation to a crime and they catch you lying then that makes you look guilty. Anything you say may be used in evidence and lies look awful.
And no i am no doubting the woman at all
Yes you are, why do you not cast doubt on the actual liar?
So you also have issue with circumstantial evidence convicting Graham Dwyer.
Just think about how dumb what you’re saying is. Basically it would mean any man who sexually assaults a woman with no witnesses and makes sure to leave no physical evidence should automatically be found innocent.
I might be reading this differently, but it seems like the concern being raised is about legal standards and how circumstantial evidence is weighed, rather than about women's credibility. Those feel like different conversations to me.
Funny how people only ever raise these concerns when a women is the victim. The conviction rate for perpetrators of assaults against women is horribly low and yet Redditors seemingly want them even lower.
Those feel like two different conversations to me. Worrying about evidentiary standards in one case isn't the same as wanting fewer convictions overall.
Yeah you're right you know. The judge was winging it. Its obvious. He saw the Nonce Face jacket and his inner voice said "engage".
Hopefully the DPP, the AG and the Office of the President read Reddit and we can get this sorted.
I think reasonable doubt applies in this situation. All they can do is review her testimony, but the court is not permitted to review his character. Courts don't allow propensity evidence based on things like reputation, as it's unfairly prejudicial.
Most likely the case will be dismissed. Although it does seem odd to travel across the country for a stew.
Who among us hasn't popped to Galway for a fish stew after a tough week in the office.
What was his crime eating a meal ! A succulent fishy meal !
RIP Cecil.
I see you know your Galway well.
Get your hand off my Claddagh!
The Guy Williams piece on him is hilarious! Well worth a watch.
As a kiwi, it's nice seeing a connection like this in /r/Ireland
Kia ora! We love the kiwis!
Bravo
No, it was mainly the groping. Allegedly.
Not defending the guy - he looks like a creep - In Malaysia (my example) its not unheard of to drive hours to try particular foods. My dad and I once drove to 6 hours to try some famous Nasi Lemak in some random village! I'd happily take a day trip to Galway if there was some wellknown dish/restraunt to try out :) Food is the centrepiece of our culture, we got nothing else really!
It's one that doesn't get the same focus as some of your neighbors but Malaysian food is so good. I was lucky enough to be in KL a bit for work years ago, even just a simple chicken rice is so good.
Thats probably one of the first things I'd eat when I go back to visit in March :) ! Actually pretty easy to replicate at home! Hainanese poach chicken and rice cooked with the chicken broth/fat & some ginger! Then stir fry some bean sprouts with a little bit of soya sauce and garnish with dried onions!
Sounds fishy
Gardai seaman ?
Where in Galway would you recommend for fish stew? Asking for a friend.
The Lantern
lol imagine haha
O'Grady's on the pier at Barna.
That's my friend's daytrip sorted. Thanks
Make sure you book. It's well worth it.
Moran’s
O’Grady’s
O’Dowds
Just don't do any groping on your way out
I'll keep my hands to myself your honour
Chowder in The Dail Bar is fucking SAVAGE
I went to Galway for a chowder, no shame in it. Barely groped anyone so not sure what this guys excuse is
CHOWDER!
Dayum right! lol
Whomst indeed.
I'd imagine 90% of buscams are for show
The bus companies love the cameras, they need them as evidence in accidents and incidents. If a driver is accused of doing something then they can use video evidence to avoid responsibility.
The drivers like the cameras because they’re generally used to clear them from mad accusations by junkies etc and usually show what’s gone on in accidents, which is generally good for bus drivers.
No one involved has an interest in the cameras being out of action and they all have good reason to keep them in good condition. Having said that, these things are old and stuff just breaks.
I was literally just thinking the same thing
I work in legal and I've seen bus cctv footage before! They are needed for motor vehicle accidents and personal injury claims made by passengers against the operating company (e.g. in the event of a collision).
They sometimes record a whole bunch of other data too like latitude, longitude, acceleration and velocity and that can be useful too.
If you are in a public place, its probably covered in CCTV and you are being recorded. Most of it is because people can have accidents and sue the owner/operator of the space. Insurance providers in some cases mandate cctv for the owner/operator to even qualify for public liability insurance.
Na, when I were a lad they went class to class showing video footage off a local bus route. It was a bit legendary as there was a lad who pulled his head back and lurched forward to spit out the window. We all knew who he was and brook out laughing.
Wasn’t quite the response they were expecting.
Dublin Bus are notoriously difficult to get CCTV from, they won't budge unless the guards turn up.
Source: personal injury adjacent
Which is a weird one because recording in public places is legal as far as I know unless you're recording kids or whatever.
I guess distribution of recorded video isn't?
Or maybe there's a risk they record something illegal and it's easier refuse outright?
Anyone know the reason why recordings on and in public areas couldn't be made available?
I'm guessing they can but it's just easier for them to refuse.
It’s actually strictly down to GDPR. While you can record in public as an individual, the rules change completely for Dublin Bus when it captures, stores, and processes that footage. It becomes "personal data" for which they are the Data Controller.
If they hand you a raw video file, they are sharing the faces, location, and movements of every other passenger on that bus with an unauthorised third party (you). That is technically a data breach. You can request footage of yourself (a Subject Access Request), but under the Data Protection Act, they are legally obliged to protect the "rights and freedoms" of others. To give you the video legally, they would have to go through frame-by-frame and blur the face of every other person. This is time-consuming and expensive, so they will often refuse or push back unless forced.
The reason the Guards can get it easily is that GDPR has a specific exemption for the "prevention, detection, and investigation of crime." You, as a private citizen, do not have that statutory power.
If Im wrong here please someone correct me
thanks. it kind of makes sense as i wouldnt be happy personally if i knew i was starring in someone elses video.
The victim sounds credible, and the accused seems to be telling lies about everything.
Nonsense about heart meds making him sleep(they don't) and changes his reason for being on the bus from one which was a lie to another which makes no sense and is also almost certainly a lie.
Much respect to the victim, but I'm surprised they got a conviction out of this, it basically boils down to an accusation with 0 actual evidence the act took place.
Testimony is considered "actual evidence", if it wasn't there'd be no convictions for historical sex abuse.
A lot of sexual assault cases come down to this. It's one of the reasons that they're underreported, because victims think they won't be believed.
"Creepy" is one word for it yeah
Sexual assault? At least Garda Seaman was on the case
You made me read the article!
Hooked him at the end of the line
Lads im not gonna lie, I absolutely think he did it , but I've never seen so little evidence lead to a conviction. Its great to see it because all too often these instances dont get reported , never mind make it into court , its just bizarre that its one word against another and it's held up in court .
Anyways , anyone know what restaurant this muppet thought was worth a 2 hour bus journey
It's only believable as his excuses are worse than "dog ate my homework".
My dog ate my fish stew
If it was Judge Martin he would have been innocent
Bizarre that that man still has a job
[deleted]
Because witness evidence is admissible in court.
[deleted]
yeah, the victim is a witness too. It also appears he lied a lot so she was likely seen as more credible. And she immediately told two people. Outcry witness testimony can be very compelling evidence.
Well the judge decides. And seeing as the guy lied about what he was doing in Galway, lied about being asleep the judge said that his testimony was bs. That leaves one testimony left.
She had a photo of the bloke. Women don't take photos of men on the bus for no reason.
Had the CCTV on the bus been functional, it could have backed either one of them. The fact that her story tracked, and she had texts to her mother and partner that matched her story, was also evidence. It's also why you get and put everything in writing to cover your arse in work.
What? Are you new to social media? How is this in any way a solid reason
Are you new to women? We take photos of taxi drivers, men we meet on first dates, creepy men following/harassing us. It's for evidence in case something goes wrong. We do this shit for our own safety. Every woman has a story of a man being a creep to her. 1 in 3 of us have been victims of SA.
I never said anything about any of that. The idea that it’s evidence of nefarious stuff just because someone took a picture is ludicrous.
However - I do believe the woman, I know people this has happened to.
I always think this is wild, especially in cases where something allegedly happened decades ago. How can someone be found guilty of something that happened 30 or 40 years ago with no hard evidence, just someone else's testimony?
Not saying these things shouldn't be pursued but it must be very difficult for juries to make a decision on them.
Because witness evidence can be very compelling. The reality of sexual offences is that they overwhelmingly occur in private circumstances. There’s rarely an eye-witness, especially in offences involving children because offenders know that’s the only way they might possibly get away with it. If these types of cases weren’t triable, very few people would ever be convicted of sexual offences.
There’s plenty of ways a defence team can criticise and attempt to pick apart a case involving a single witness in front of a jury. They can criticise their account, of course, point to it being improbable, they can request the Judge give the jury a delay warning, meaning the jury will be told before deliberating that cases which feature a substantial delay between the alleged offence and the reporting of same are more difficult to defend from an accused’s standpoint. They can also separately request that the judge direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the trial on the basis that the evidence isn’t reliable and any conviction arising from same would be unsafe.
The biggest protection for any accused person in this country is the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof. Every jury will be told ad nauseam, even in trials where the evidence seems overwhelming, that they may only convict if they are satisfied on the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Me [M52] I might wanna find that guy 20 odd yrs ago on the Nitelink rubbing my leg while he was having a drunken nap. As I went to move his hand, he grabs my hand, interlocks his fingers with mine and snuggled me (big fella) 😂
Anywho, he woke up/got it together a few seconds later, got defensive straight away and then copped I wasn't his girlfriend who he left go home on another bus 🤭
He was very apologetic with a quick explanation and a few giggles from others, got off the bus and I don't think it was even his stop.
Tho I think I've drooled on a few shoulders on public transport in my time too with "I love you"...Oh shit 👀 (excluding a fish supper and shades)
What a very strange case
He definitely is acting incredibly weird... and if I had to bet I'd bet he was guilty but I still can't believe he was considered guilty with no witnesses. I guess it emphasises the point that even if you are innocent (which again... he's probably not) it's important to tell the full truth and appear an honest person.
What reason was he actually going to Galway? Why did he lie to his family? Maybe he was going to see a prostitute/mistress?
What does Amazon have to do with the behavior of one sick individual in this article. People then question why they have been sacked or didn't get a job due to their social media etc. when they suck this shit up without question.
That individual wearing a The North Face jacket?
Poor Amazon God love them
"What does Amazon have to do with the behavior of one sick individual in this article"
Modern journalism
Click bait
:-(
creepy Jeff Bezos employee
It'll link him to his job and he'll hopefully be sacked
I DID NOT TOUCH BOBS!!!
[deleted]
Would ya shut your mouth you pricks. You're no better than the gobshite if you engage in casual racism. Would you call a black person the n word just because he committed a crime? This is the same. Have some cop on
Garda Seaman. Unlucky.
Doctor or engineer?
Software Engineer.
We don’t need Amazon, hypeconsumption climate destroying junk, nor do we need its cheap foreign pervert labourers.
Amazon Software Engineers are not cheap.
Dubai chocolate is not cheap. We still don’t fucking need it.
I read something to the effect that the whole Dubai chocolate thing is to overwhelm search results on the whole "porta potty" thing. But Dubai chocolate uses so much pistachio it actually has altered the economy of certain states in Argentina as a result of this manufactured demand.
Ah fuck why does he have to make us look bad and reinforce negative stereotypes.
I know, IT workers are never dodging the creepy accusations now.
So one person account stands 100% against another person? Irrespective of Nationality or circumstances, this is a dangerous precedence. Are we not supposed to live in a society where you are not guilty until proven otherwise. Anyone can do this to anyone, if they hate or misjudge.
Full sympathy with girl/women whom with incident happened, but this doesn't sit right with me. I know i will be downvoted to oblivion, but one day your brother, father, husband could be accused of something they didn't commit and lives will be ruined if we continue on this path. Why in 2026 we still dont have 100% end to end CCTV coverage of such public places like bus/trains is beyond me.
If you bothered to read the article other circumstantial evidence was taken into account but I’m sure you’d just rather cast doubt on the woman.
Let us set aside our xenophobic prejudices and focus on what really matters... Doubting women!
I read the article very carefully. Circumstantial evidence, is what is the problem here. And no i am no doubting the woman at all, i am talking about how law is being implemented here and decision is made. No one else saw anything, she doesnt made any noise coz she thought entire bus will be late to airport. I mean, this doesnt sound very strong. Again, if this happened, very sorry for woman, but the way this is being handled is not correct.
I think it's a totally understandable reaction that you wouldn't tell anyone on the bus out of embarrassment/not wanting to put people out. Like have you ever chosen not to do something out of embarrassment/not wanting to cause a scene? Can you imagine announcing to a bus driver with the possibility of others hearing that you've just be touched by a weirdo and then the ensuing kerfuffle that would happen and then the whole bus would be looking at you?
Also, how likely do you think some woman sees a random man on the bus and decides she's going to accuse him of sexual assault? Like in what sense would she benefit from doing so?
Feel like since the lied to his family about his whereabouts its reflected in the case that he might not be as credible.
I was down here for a work event.
and where is that.
Ah no actually I travelled across the country for a meal.
Were you asleep?
Yes.
With your hand covering your face?
If you are being questioned by the Gardai in relation to a crime and they catch you lying then that makes you look guilty. Anything you say may be used in evidence and lies look awful.
Yes you are, why do you not cast doubt on the actual liar?
Circumstantial evidence _is_ a form of evidence and has a completely valid place in cases like this.
So you also have issue with circumstantial evidence convicting Graham Dwyer.
Just think about how dumb what you’re saying is. Basically it would mean any man who sexually assaults a woman with no witnesses and makes sure to leave no physical evidence should automatically be found innocent.
I might be reading this differently, but it seems like the concern being raised is about legal standards and how circumstantial evidence is weighed, rather than about women's credibility. Those feel like different conversations to me.
Funny how people only ever raise these concerns when a women is the victim. The conviction rate for perpetrators of assaults against women is horribly low and yet Redditors seemingly want them even lower.
Those feel like two different conversations to me. Worrying about evidentiary standards in one case isn't the same as wanting fewer convictions overall.
You should be found not guilty of a crime with no witnesses or evidence against you yes. What point are you even making
There was a witness. The victim.
Yeah you're right you know. The judge was winging it. Its obvious. He saw the Nonce Face jacket and his inner voice said "engage". Hopefully the DPP, the AG and the Office of the President read Reddit and we can get this sorted.
You realise that witness testimony has been used for thousands of years, yes thousands, to convict people of crimes. You come across as a loon.
Sus but I feel like having an article about you on the internet labelling you creepy is punishment enough
Amazon Prime suspect gets delivered a package of whoopass.
Sounds fishy
🐟
Maybe it's just a poorly written article, but going by what was written seems like there was no solid evidence other than the woman's claim?
There were also witnesses, who I presume gave evidence.
Don't really understand how he was found guilty with no evidence
I think reasonable doubt applies in this situation. All they can do is review her testimony, but the court is not permitted to review his character. Courts don't allow propensity evidence based on things like reputation, as it's unfairly prejudicial.
Most likely the case will be dismissed. Although it does seem odd to travel across the country for a stew.
Mmmmm… fish stew…