Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

Zulu

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The one thing that I do agree on with what she says is that no person who is making a claim of being raped should be subjected to 8 days of questioning on the stand.
I know it breaks down to 2 days for each cross examination, but there should be measures put in place to prevent such lengthy questioning.

Well in fairness, a few days on the stand to ensure we don't lock someone innocent away for a few years seems justifiable to me.

Boom_Bap

givyjoe wrote: »

But what is the alternative? This a deterrent to ANY victim of ANY crime?

I don't have that answer, I'm not that smart.

Lu Tze

Any suggestions for a better approach? If you put limits on the time that the complainant gets examined in the stand, surely all avenue can't be explored?

The defence is put at a disadvantage of it can't put all questions to the complainant? What's alternative, also limiting the time the accused can be examined, again unable to explore all avenues for prosecution?

givyjoe

Lu Tze wrote: »

Any suggestions for a better approach? If you put limits on the time that the complainant gets examined in the stand, surely all avenue can't be explored?

The defence is put at a disadvantage of it can't put all questions to the complainant? What's alternative, also limiting the time the accused can be examined, again unable to explore all avenues for prosecution?

Precisely.

garbo speaks

To loonies like Louise O'Neill, any woman who makes a complaint of rape against a man is automatically telling the complete truth, and the alleged rapist must therefore be found guilty even if there is zero evidence and corroboration to back up the accuser. Evidence, trial by a jury of their peers, and due process mean nothing to this dimwit.

retro:electro

Actually I find **** like this annoying to read



No idea who this is. Just saw LON retweeted it. So on the one hand they’re saying #ibelieveher and on the other they’re discouraging victims from reporting if a crime is committed upon them.

No. The message is and should always be if you are raped then report it. No need for idiots like this to throw their toys out of the pram and use this case as a tool to discourage people from reporting. Really dumb.

garbo speaks

No prizes for guessing that rape will be the topic of Louise's article in The Examiner this week; oh wait, that's every week :rolleyes:

Bunny Colvin

retro:electro wrote: »

Actually I find **** like this annoying to read



No idea who this is. Just saw LON retweeted it. So on the one hand they’re saying #ibelieveher and on the other they’re discouraging victims from reporting if a crime is committed upon them.

No. The message is and should always be if you are raped then report it. No need for idiots like this to throw their toys out of the pram and use this case as a tool to discourage people from reporting. Really dumb.

I don't think they're saying not to report it, more of a case that there's no point because you're guaranteed to lose - which isn't the case, of course.
They're just throwing their toys out of the pram because they disagree with the verdict. Which is crazy considering there's no way they know more about the trial than the jury members that unanimously found the men not guilty. The verdict just doesn't fit their agenda.

Boom_Bap

"Don't Report It" is an extremely irresponsible message to convey.

Vicxas

Is that what people are taking from this?

People are idiots.

Outlaw Pete

What I don't get is if Louise believes women, how does she decide which woman to believe when two or more contradict one another.

Two female witnesses in this case say they saw (and heard) no signs of distress from the alleged victim as she was being penetrated from behind and one of them felt comfortable enough to say that what she had saw looked like a threesome and even then joked about as she made her way back downstairs.

So why does Louise not believe those women? Why believe the one saying she's a victim of rape but not the women giving evidence saying that what they witnessed looked like consensual sex.

All rhetorical questions of course.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

"Don't Report It" is an extremely irresponsible message to convey.

As I've said elsewhere if a female friend came to me there's no way I'd encourage them to report it, unless it was something that was easily provable.

Vicxas

Vicxas wrote: »

Is that what people are taking from this?

People are idiots.

People are idiots..

What I'm taking from the whole affair is that rugby players are kind of gay..

And people are just vitriolic at times..

pjohnson

retro:electro wrote: »

Actually I find **** like this annoying to read



No idea who this is. Just saw LON retweeted it. So on the one hand they’re saying #ibelieveher and on the other they’re discouraging victims from reporting if a crime is committed upon them.

No. The message is and should always be if you are raped then report it. No need for idiots like this to throw their toys out of the pram and use this case as a tool to discourage people from reporting. Really dumb.

The biased patriachy always defends men (you must ignore it was a unanimous jury decision that included female jurors). Although I'm sure they'd prefer no trial and accusation = guilty, no questions dare be asked.

Bunny Colvin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What I don't get is if Louise believes women, how does she decide which woman to believe when two or more contradict one another.

Two female witnesses in this case say they saw (and heard) no signs of distress from her as she was being penetrated from behind and one of them felt comfortable enough to say that what she had saw looked like a threesome and even then joked about as she made her way back downstairs.

So why does Louise not believe those women? Why believe the one saying she's a victim of rape but not the women giving evidence saying that what they witnessed looked like consensual sex.

All rhetorical questions of course.

Because those women gave evidence that sided with the men of course.

garbo speaks

pjohnson wrote: »

The biased patriachy always defends men (you must ignore it was a unanimous jury decision that included female jurors). Although I'm sure they'd prefer no trial and accusation = guilty, no questions dare be asked.

How do idiots like Louise O'Neill justify the fact that the female jurors found the defendants not guilty? Did the mean men in the jury pressure them? Or, did the female jurors listen to all of the evidence and witnesses over the past nine weeks, consider this carefully, and arrive at a fact-based verdict, uninfluenced by emotion?

givyjoe

garbo speaks wrote: »

How do idiots like Louise O'Neill justify the fact that the female jurors found the defendants not guilty? Did the mean men in the jury pressure them? Or, did the female jurors listen to all of the evidence and witnesses over the past nine weeks, consider this carefully, and arrive at a fact-based verdict, uninfluenced by emotion?

Isn't there statistics that have male dominated juries finding a higher proportion of defendants guilty in rape cases, than those dominated by women? Vaguely remember reading this somewhere, but have no idea from that jurisdiction they were from.

freshpopcorn

givyjoe wrote: »

Isn't there statistics that have male dominated juries finding a higher proportion of defendants guilty in rape cases, than those dominated by women? Vaguely remember reading this somewhere, but have no idea from that jurisdiction they were from.

I did a semester of law at college and the lecturer was a female barrister and her husband was a barrister and she told us this!

manonboard

givyjoe wrote: »

Isn't there statistics that have male dominated juries finding a higher proportion of defendants guilty in rape cases, than those dominated by women? Vaguely remember reading this somewhere, but have no idea from that jurisdiction they were from.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I did a semester of law at college and the lecturer was a female barrister and her husband was a barrister and she told us this!

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/stanford-rape-case-female-dominated-juries-less-likely-to-convict-in-rape-cases-404525.html

This link has info on the book that suggests this, and gives some further breakdown. Essentially, yes. Male dominated juries tend to give guilty verdicts more than gender balanced juries.

markodaly

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But it's still 8 days where she had to climb up there and be questioned.

That should never happen in any trial of this nature going forward and there should be changes made in the judicial systems to ensure it doesn't.

Possibly, but what changes would you put forward. Remember, each defendant is entitled to due process and a legal defence under the law. If the accused is going to accuse 4 people of various illegal acts, then of course the 4 of them are going to be entitled to state their case.

The alternative could be much worse where lawyers are not allowed to ask relevant and pertaining questions in relation to the case, which may lead to a wrongful conviction.

Instead of people giving knee-jerk responses, think about the consequences of your proposals.

Yer Da sells Avon

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What I don't get is if Louise believes women, how does she decide which woman to believe when two or more contradict one another.

Two female witnesses in this case say they saw (and heard) no signs of distress from the alleged victim as she was being penetrated from behind and one of them felt comfortable enough to say that what she had saw looked like a threesome and even then joked about as she made her way back downstairs.

So why does Louise not believe those women? Why believe the one saying she's a victim of rape but not the women giving evidence saying that what they witnessed looked like consensual sex.

All rhetorical questions of course.

It sounds like she believes the woman who was in the room the whole time, and who was prepared to allow herself to be effectively put on trial for several months, even if this contradicts the evidence of the women who only caught a momentary snapshot of what was happening in the room.

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It sounds like she believes the woman who was in the room the whole time, and who was prepared to allow herself to be effectively put on trial for several months, even if this contradicts the evidence of the women who only caught a momentary snapshot of what was happening in the room.

Yet she also seems to believe that her own verdict from “momentary snapshots” throughout the trial trumps a jury who have heard every shred of evidence from both sides.

You come across a bit gutted yourself in that post...

deaddonkey15

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

It sounds like she believes the woman who was in the room the whole time, and who was prepared to allow herself to be effectively put on trial for several months, even if this contradicts the evidence of the women who only caught a momentary snapshot of what was happening in the room.

But she doesn't seem to believe the 3 women on the jury either, who know more about the details of this case than any of us.

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

You come across a bit gutted yourself in that post...

I don't know if you're gloating or not, but that's how you're coming across.

suicide_circus

More victim fuel

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I don't know if you're gloating or not, but that's how you're coming across.

Nope. Not gloating at all. I would have accepted the decision either way because I’m not one of these modern day lefties that want to deny democracy and decisions in a court of law.

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Nope. Not gloating at all. I would have accepted the decision either way because I’m not one of these modern day lefties that want to deny democracy and decisions in a court of law.

Then why, if you aren't gloating, do you feel the need to tell someone that they seem gutted?

Will I Am Not

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Then why, if you aren't gloating, do you feel the need to tell someone that they seem gutted?

That’s the way your post came across. I just find it odd that people are disappointed that these men were cleared.

Yer Da sells Avon

Will I Am Not wrote: »

That’s the way your post came across. I just find it odd that people are disappointed that these men were cleared.

Can you see how your post comes across though? Gloating. Pointless, shitty point-scoring, telling someone they're 'gutted'. Like your 'team' ('Team Men's Rights' or whatever) has scored a victory against the 'feminazis', and now you're using that victory as a stick to beat them with. You're absolutely blind to that, aren't you?

There haven't been any winners here.

pjohnson

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Can you see how your post comes across though? Gloating. Pointless, shitty point-scoring, telling someone they're 'gutted'. Like your 'team' ('Team Men's Rights' or whatever) has scored a victory against the 'feminazis', and now you're using that victory as a stick to beat them with. You're absolutely blind to that, aren't you?

There haven't been any winners here.

What team? Men have been found innocent of a crime they didn't commit (cue A-Team music), idiots are upset that they didn't get what they wanted. People are laughing at said idiots.

There are no winners but there is certainly victims. The men who have had their careers ruined and names dragged through the mud. All while she gets off scott free.


And you want to keep going with Team Men vs. Team Feminazi?