Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

Wow, you jumped right into that one. I rest my case.

Jumped into what ?

Silentcorner

chicorytip wrote: »

So the "We believe her" brigade clearly regard the members of the jury who - after weeks of listening to what was, at times, complex and contradictory evidence - delivered a swift and unanimous not guilty verdict, as complete and utter fools!!

I think this is going over your head...don't worry about it...

upandcumming

Faugheen wrote: »

Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Not guilty =/= innocent

Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

Not guilty =/= the woman consented

Not guilty =/= the woman lied

Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.

I haven't seen as many people call her a liar as abuse the fuck out of the defendants.

=/= in your example should really read 'might or might not'. This isn't as black or white as you're making it out to be. I could easily add in:

Not guilty =/= the woman was truthful

Silentcorner

bebeman wrote: »

At the end of the day it all boils dow to buyers remorse.
Who here has not gone out, had a few drinks, done some dancing or karaoke?
Next day you wake up, full of remorse for acting the fool the night before, it was great fun at the time , but now you regret it.

We have a female witness that said in court the girl was a willing participant, this woman the next day when sober, regretted what she done the night before, and in a attempt to reclaim her dignity cried RAPE!

If women want modern feminism, equal to men, they have got to accept that you will have sexual encounters that you are not proud off.
Wake up the next morning, "what have i done, no way, too hell with it, forget about it, Get on with you life".

The young lady you are referring to returned home in a taxi..30 minutes after leaving the house...traumatised, bleeding and bruised, unable to talk...I doubt she ever thought it was great fun...

Faugheen

bebeman wrote: »

We have a female witness that said in court the girl was a willing participant, this woman the next day when sober, regretted what she done the night before, and in a attempt to reclaim her dignity cried RAPE

We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

Neither were the defendants

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

Who says we're operating under Irish law? I never said I was. But if you think there is no way to be charged with being 'drunk' in Irish law, you're very much mistaken.

As so you deliberately gave me the laws pertaining to the state of Indiana USA.....
For someone you studied law you seem to struggle with it a lot, under irish law what is the definition of "drunk" as it pertains to consent, you want to waffle but cannot actually answer questions... it's fine just say you don't know!

irishrebe wrote: »

Oh dear, you're embarrassing yourself. There were literally pages of multiple men ON THIS VERY THREAD telling women not to go to men's houses or get drunk around men. Guess you missed those, did you?

Just the bit because men will want to rape them...

irishrebe wrote: »

Who says the straight man consented to sex? He says he didn't. His word against theirs.

Do you know what hyperbole means?

So you want to compare sexually compatible adults to sexual non compatible adults in case to establish if consent was given.

Also you are jumping from one thing to another, a second ago it was drunken consent now it is just a question of consent.
A straight man is not going to consent to sex sober so the issue of being drunk is a moot point.
However a gay man sober or drunk potentially can give consent.

Strazdas

chicorytip wrote: »

So the "We believe her" brigade clearly regard the members of the jury who - after weeks of listening to what was, at times, complex and contradictory evidence - delivered a swift and unanimous not guilty verdict, as complete and utter fools!!

Not necessarily - I think their argument is more with how the legal system handles rape allegations. They're not saying that the jury itself screwed up with the verdict, more that they don't like the adversarial nature of such trials.

Even if that is what they are claiming though, I'm not sure what the solution to their argument would be or if there is any solution. It's very hard to secure a conviction when there are no witnesses to an incident and it's all 'he says, she says'.

Faugheen

upandcumming wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Not guilty =/= innocent

Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

Not guilty =/= the woman consented

Not guilty =/= the woman lied

Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.

I haven't seen as many people call her a liar as abuse the fuck out of the defendants.

=/= in your example should really read 'might or might not'. This isn't as black or white as you're making it out to be. I could easily add in:

Not guilty =/= the woman was truthful

You could, and that would be fair enough.

However, people on boards (a lot more than not) are using the verdict to say she is lying, when that in itself is a lie.

Neither of us know if she was lying or not. I personally don't believe she was, however I don't necessarily think the lads are lying either. This brings up the issue of consent.

There's one narrative on boards that's sticking out more and it's the wrong one which says the verdict means the crime didn't happen or that she's the liar. It's absolutely wrong and the complainant is entitled to the same presumed innocence as the lads are because she hasn't been found to have said or done anything wrong.

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

Neither were the defendants

Point out where I said they were, please.

emeraldwinter

Strazdas wrote: »

Not necessarily - I think their argument is more with how the legal system handles rape allegations. They're not saying that the jury itself screwed up with the verdict, more that they don't like the adversarial nature of such trials.

Even if that is what they are claiming though, I'm not sure what the solution to their argument would be or if there is any solution. It's very hard to secure a conviction when there are no witnesses to an incident and it's all 'he says, she says'.

What Irish laws would they like changed ?

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

Point out where I said they were, please.

I never said you did, Was point out a fact, and if that was believed there would not be a nearly 400 page thread.

lightspeed

Faugheen wrote: »

Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Not guilty =/= innocent

Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

Not guilty =/= the woman consented

Not guilty =/= the woman lied

Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.

When challenged, a high percentage say the lads are 'innocent until proven guilty'.

However, for some reason, the fact the complainant hasn't been found guilty of anything doesn't matter in the eyes of the people who use the 'innocent until proven guilty' phrase above. They've made up their minds and found the woman guilty of making up that she was raped.

The entire trial was a circus and she was failed by the justice system in Northern Ireland.

Why?

She's entitled to anonymity, yet the laws allow any joe soap to walk in off the street for a look at the trial, where her name was repeatedly said in court.

What anonymity is that?

And where was the anonymity for the accused?

Granted they are somewhat known sport celebrities at least in their locality, if any other bloke had of been accused of the same crime, their name would have been made public but the accuser's name woudnt?

That's something people should protest against. The fact is the attitude is that if your a male and their is an accusation of rape, we need to protect the victim as she has been through enough and no way a rape victim is going to lie about something like that. We don't need to worry about protecting your identity as your an awful rapist. So you guilty until proven innocent.

For all those women protesting, if the evidence was the exact same would any of them be protesting if it was their son, father or brother that had been accused and put to trial?

If the answer is no then they are all disgusting hypocrites who should be ashamed of themselves.

bebeman

Faugheen wrote: »

We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!

Strazdas

emeraldwinter wrote: »

What Irish laws would they like changed ?

I'm assuming one aspect they are unhappy with is the part where the complainant can be on the stand for days and cross examined by four different barristers - each of whom is trying to discredit her and make it look like she is spoofing all the way.

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Point out where I said they were, please.

I never said you did, Was point out a fact, and if that was believed there would not be a nearly 400 page thread.

That's nice and all but your whataboutery has nothing to do with the point I was making, and that is people saying she's a liar.

The post you quoted, I was responding to someone who said she cried rape after regret. Ergo, her being called a liar.

In fact, I already said in an earlier post that the lads presumed innocent. So really your reply to me was just a waste of your time all while making a point I've already addressed.

I'll ask you a question, though.

Is the complainant presumed innocent?

Noveight

#SueMePaddy really is throwing up some cancerous nonsense.

https://twitter.com/flyingteacosy/status/979704730657218563

emeraldwinter

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm assuming one aspect they are unhappy with is the part where the complainant can be on the stand for days and cross examined by four different barristers - each of whom is trying to discredit her and make it look like she is spoofing all the way.

But this case happened in the UK have you a link so similar happening in this jurisdiction ? Not saying it has not happened.

Silentcorner

bebeman wrote: »

The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!

You are assuming it was a premeditated rape...which absolutely nobody believes it was...I do think that none of the lads thought they were doing any wrong at the time...

I'll be willing to bet that you are not familiar with tonic immobilisation either...when a victim freezes and does just enough to survive what they perceive to be a very dangerous situation....

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Who says we're operating under Irish law? I never said I was. But if you think there is no way to be charged with being 'drunk' in Irish law, you're very much mistaken.

As so you deliberately gave me the laws pertaining to the state of Indiana USA.....
For someone you studied law you seem to struggle with it a lot, under irish law what is the definition of "drunk" as it pertains to consent, you want to waffle but cannot actually answer questions... it's fine just say you don't know!

irishrebe wrote: »

Oh dear, you're embarrassing yourself. There were literally pages of multiple men ON THIS VERY THREAD telling women not to go to men's houses or get drunk around men. Guess you missed those, did you?

Just the bit because men will want to rape them...

irishrebe wrote: »

Who says the straight man consented to sex? He says he didn't. His word against theirs.

Do you know what hyperbole means?

So you want to compare sexually compatible adults to sexual non compatible adults in case to establish if consent was given.

Also you are jumping from one thing to another, a second ago it was drunken consent now it is just a question of consent.
A straight man is not going to consent to sex sober so the issue of being drunk is a moot point.
However a gay man sober or drunk potentially can give consent.

I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it? 
Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.
What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

irishrebe

bebeman wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!

Know many of them then, do you?

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it? 
Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.
What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

Nope, Just the UK law would be fine.

irishrebe

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it? 
Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.
What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

Nope, Just the UK law would be fine.

Find it then. What did your last slave die of? If you want to prove me wrong, the onus is on you to do so.

bebeman

Buyers remorse.
Feminists want equality, well now they have got it.
There is not a man alive who does not have a sexual encounter that they don't regret,
Suck it up, tell yourself you wont be so foolish again, take the teasing from your friends, and get on with your life.
Don't lodge a false rape claim to try reclaim your dignity.

Faugheen

lightspeed wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Having read through this thread, just want to spell some things out for some people here.

Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Not guilty =/= innocent

Not guilty = presumed innocence (based off the first definition above)

Not guilty =/= the jury didn't believe her story.

Not guilty =/= no crime taking place.

Not guilty =/= the woman consented

Not guilty =/= the woman lied

Not guilty =/= she filed a false rape allegation.

The last two in particular, I've seen many people say that she's a liar, she should be named and shamed etc etc.

When challenged, a high percentage say the lads are 'innocent until proven guilty'.

However, for some reason, the fact the complainant hasn't been found guilty of anything doesn't matter in the eyes of the people who use the 'innocent until proven guilty' phrase above. They've made up their minds and found the woman guilty of making up that she was raped.

The entire trial was a circus and she was failed by the justice system in Northern Ireland.

Why?

She's entitled to anonymity, yet the laws allow any joe soap to walk in off the street for a look at the trial, where her name was repeatedly said in court.

What anonymity is that?

And where was the anonymity for the accused?

Granted they are somewhat known sport celebrities at least in their locality, if any other bloke had of been accused of the same crime, their name would have been made public but the accuser's name woudnt?

That's something people should protest against. The fact is the attitude is that if your a male and their is an accusation of rape, we need to protect the victim as she has been through enough and no way a rape victim is going to lie about something like that. We don't need to worry about protecting your identity as your an awful rapist. So you guilty until proven innocent.

For all those women protesting, if the evidence was the exact same would any of them be protesting if it was their son, father or brother that had been accused and put to trial?

If the answer is no then they are all disgusting hypocrites who should be ashamed of themselves.

The anonymity of the defendants I've already addressed numerous times in this thread. I believe there is a discussion to be had there.

However, the complainant is entitled to it under law, yet it's completely counter-acted by any ordinary person being allowed to enter the court room and here her name being said numerous times. She's entitled to it under law, how can that be when something like this can happen?

In the Republic, members of the public aren't allowed to go to a rape trial, and both the complainant and the defendant have anonymity (unless the complainant waives his/her right to it.

Either way, you've resorted to whataboutery to avoid a genuine question because it doesn't suit your defence of the boys.

Silentcorner

bebeman wrote: »

Buyers remorse.
Feminists want equality, well now they have got it.
There is not a man alive who does not have a sexual encounter that they don't regret,
Suck it up, tell yourself you wont be so foolish again, take the teasing from your friends, and get on with your life.
Don't lodge a false rape claim to try reclaim your dignity.

Who are you talking to...or are you just howling at the moon?

upandcumming

Strazdas wrote: »

I'm assuming one aspect they are unhappy with is the part where the complainant can be on the stand for days and cross examined by four different barristers - each of whom is trying to discredit her and make it look like she is spoofing all the way.

There were four separate defendants ffs.

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

That's nice and all but your whataboutery has nothing to do with the point I was making, and that is people saying she's a liar.

The post you quoted, I was responding to someone who said she cried rape after regret. Ergo, her being called a liar.

In fact, I already said in an earlier post that the lads presumed innocent. So really your reply to me was just a waste of your time all while making a point I've already addressed.

I'll ask you a question, though.

Is the complainant presumed innocent?

Yes like the defendants who has called her a liar on this thread

Look back through it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Go back through my posts where I tell people that they're wrong when they call her a liar. You'll soon see for yourself that it's a nasty narrative in this thread.

Pac1Man

I have a dream

emeraldwinter

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well then...they should report a crime...

They cant under Irish law they were not penetrated. Think it's the same in the UK.

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

Look back through it. In fact, I'll make it easy for you. Go back through my posts where I tell people that they're wrong when they call her a liar. You'll soon see for yourself that it's a nasty narrative in this thread.

I have seen the insinuation that people are calling the victim a liar. Can you link to specifics ? Not believing the story of events does not equate to calling the victim a liar.

bebeman

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well then...they should report a crime...

They where so drunk they dont remember a thing, a bit like a woman being so drunk she dont remember being a willing participant.

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

One person I have quoted on the last 3/4 pages in this thread has said the complainant had cried rape.

I've told you how you can find them. You can go back through my posts by clicking on my profile.

Sure will I also present the opposite about not believing the guys were found not guilty ? But Seriously I cant be bothered. Generally the person who make the accusation back them up not the other way around.

Silentcorner

bebeman wrote: »

They where so drunk they dont remember a thing, a bit like a woman being so drunk she dont remember being a willing participant.

Taxi!!

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

I gave you the first link on Google. Are you actually expecting me to go and find an Irish law textbook? Again, if you think there's no legal way to define 'drunk', you're mistaken. I gave an example of how CCTV or witness evidence could support a victim's claim of being too drunk to consent - too complicated for you, was it?

Yeah I got that you gave me the first link on google, that was pretty apparent.
You made a statement about others not knowing what rape is specifically around the idea of being "drunk".....
But are unable to a clear legal definition yourself.....

irishrebe wrote: »

Ah, so you're trying to tell me that women are told not to go to men's houses in case they get raped, but to your brain, that doesn't equate to those very men raping them? Riiiiiiiight.

I think you need to lay off the wine, you are becoming more and more difficult to understand.....
Getting drunk and going back to a strangers house is probably not a good idea for a number of reasons but you want to conflate it to getting raped.
Having sex with a stranger and latter regretting is probably the number one reason why this turns out to be a bad idea and the most common.... Getting raped is another as is getting murdered!

irishrebe wrote: »

What difference does 'sexually compatible' make? Do you think lesbians don't get raped because they tell the man they're not into men, and the man stops? I literally gave a scenario which is EXACTLY the same as that in this rape case, ONLY switching the gender of the complainant, and you think it's hyperbole? For the reason that 'a straight man is never going to consent to gay sex', when the entire basis of this entire trial is that she did not want the sexual activity to happen, hence it being a 'rape' trial.

I think you might be drunk, the scenario would be exactly the same only that the sexual orientation in your example is different, so no it is not EXACTLY the same.

If a lesbian woman claimed a man raped her it would be significant to the case and would work in her favor in her establishing non-consensual sex took place.
But I think you are forgetting the argument you are making, the argument put forward is that if it was a man we would have more sympathy of a male victim? Is that what you think?

_Dara_

Noveight wrote: »

#SueMePaddy really is throwing up some cancerous nonsense.

https://twitter.com/flyingteacosy/status/979704730657218563

I came across that yoke myself on Twitter. No self-awareness.

emeraldwinter

Silentcorner wrote: »

Taxi!!

Under Irish law you cant be raped with out penetration. Pretty sure it's the same in the UK so there would be no case even if it was rape. We should really get the laws changed do you not agree ? In the republic I mean.

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

One person I have quoted on the last 3/4 pages in this thread has said the complainant had cried rape.

I've told you how you can find them. You can go back through my posts by clicking on my profile.

Sure will I also present the opposite about not believing the guys were found not guilty ? But Seriously I cant be bothered. Generally the person who make the accusation back them up not the other way around.

There have been multiple mod warnings in this thread aimed at people who are calling the complainant a liar.

I have given back up to my claims, you just refuse to follow it. That's not my problem I'm afraid.

Anyway, if you think nobody in this thread has once called her a liar then you're deluded.

And before you say 'I never said I think nobody has called her a liar...' then you're literally arguing with me without making any point whatsoever other than whataboutery in defence of the lads.

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

Find it then. What did your last slave die of? If you want to prove me wrong, the onus is on you to do so.

You are the one making a statement burden of proof is on you, not for anyone else to disprove if you are talking through your hat...

Are you sure you have a law degree?

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

There have been multiple mod warnings in this thread aimed at people who are calling the complainant a liar.

I have given back up to my claims, you just refuse to follow it. That's not my problem I'm afraid.

Anyway, if you think nobody in this thread has once called her a liar then you're deluded.

And before you say 'I never said I think nobody has called her a liar...' then you're literally arguing with me without making any point whatsoever other than whataboutery in defence of the lads.

i don't need to defend the "Lads" the courts already did that.

Faugheen

bebeman wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

We also have the same female witness who, under re-examination, could not say that the complainant was positively consenting.

Or are we just going to ignore that nugget of information because it doesn't suit our narrative?

The woman hasn't been found guilty of anything. Stop saying she is.

The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!

Oh you've been raped have you?

'never heard of a rapist asking a woman if she wants to join' - you know many rapists?

Answer my question, are you just going to ignore the fact that Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that the complainant was positively consenting?

emeraldwinter

Faugheen wrote: »

Oh you've been raped have you?

'never heard of a rapist asking a woman if she wants to join' - you know many rapists?

Answer my question, are you just going to ignore the fact that Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that the complainant was positively consenting?

Well considering the unbacked up anecdotal belief of how many rapes go on as opposed to the figure of 7% convicted. I assume none of us know many rapists. What has a persons rape history got to do with the thread would that be victim blaming ?

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

There have been multiple mod warnings in this thread aimed at people who are calling the complainant a liar.

I have given back up to my claims, you just refuse to follow it. That's not my problem I'm afraid.

Anyway, if you think nobody in this thread has once called her a liar then you're deluded.

And before you say 'I never said I think nobody has called her a liar...' then you're literally arguing with me without making any point whatsoever other than whataboutery in defence of the lads.

i don't need to defend the "Lads" the courts already did that.

So you're refusing to access the proof that people are calling her a liar?

Is that a yes or a no?

If you want even one person, bebeman has said she cried rape more than once in the last few pages. Read his posts instead getting me to give you proof (which I'll remind you again, I've given you access to)

Instead of being a child with me, follow my advice or you can just leave the thread and let the adults do all the talking.

bebeman

Buyers remorse, case closed!

Faugheen

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Oh you've been raped have you?

'never heard of a rapist asking a woman if she wants to join' - you know many rapists?

Answer my question, are you just going to ignore the fact that Dara Florence said she couldn't say for sure that the complainant was positively consenting?

Well considering the unbacked up anecdotal belief of how many rapes go on as opposed to the figure of 7% convicted. I assume none of us know many rapists. What has a persons rape history got to do with the thread would that be victim blaming ?

I'm asking two simple questions because he seems to know a lot about being raped and what rapists do.

Faugheen

bebeman wrote: »

Buyers remorse, case closed!

You can leave the conversation now. You're out of your depth.

Strazdas

upandcumming wrote: »

There were four separate defendants ffs.

There were but such intensive cross-examination for days can make it look like the complainant is the one on trial. It's no wonder so many cases never even get to court.

Noveight

Pac1Man wrote: »

High possibility. That's blatant deformation.

At least they're making it easy for the prosecutors pursuing the deformation suits. Just search for SueMePaddy.

That's the kind of intelligence driving this crusade.

I've been scrolling through them for the past 20 minutes. Every third or fourth Tweet is similar to that one, firing the word "rapist" around at the rate of 90.

I'd love to see a heap of them taken to the cleaners.

emeraldwinter

Strazdas wrote: »

There were but such intensive cross-examination for days can make it look like the complainant is the one on trial. It's no wonder so many cases never even get to court.

And if they just handed out Guilty would you like that for your son ? there were 4 people in the room with the alleged victim. How should the case be handled can you give us a overview of what should happen ? And if it's actually legal.

hatrickpatrick

emeraldwinter wrote: »

i find it odd that they think posting this kind of stuff is acceptable. Do courts not have a place now ?

I'm pretty sure most of these people regard any sex with any sort of rough / dominance / submission type aspects to it, particularly involving a woman in a submissive position, as inherently wrong regardless of consent. They seem to honestly believe that anything other than vanilla sex is probably non consensual. The fact that the term "spit roast" is being cited all over the place as evidence for the fact that these lads are misogynistic assholes, despite the fact that "spit roast" is an extremely common term for the sex act in question, tells us that much - they find the act itself distasteful and this prejudice is informing every assumption they make which follows on from that. I'm pretty sure that in the eyes of these people, there are no circumstances under which a man could take part in a sex act like this as one of the dominant parties, and not be regarded negatively by those folks.

It's similar enough to the Graham Dwyer trial - regardless of the verdict, plenty of people made up their minds that he was a vile person specifically because of the fetishes he had. Even if he hadn't been found guilty of murder, because he was a sexual sadist plenty of people had already decided that he was a scumbag.

The reality is that vanilla sex in the missionary position is simply not something that young people see themselves as being limited by. The fact that the lads were asking if there might have been a possibility of a threesome (which could easily have meant "any chance that the woman would be up for that", and not, as everyone seems to be assuming, "any chance we can just do it regardless") has immediately placed them on the wrong side of "good taste" in a lot of peoples' eyes.

Personally I have a huge, huge problem with this for all sorts of reasons. It's difficult enough for people to come to terms with their non-vanilla sexual kinks, without the added pressure of feeling like society will automatically view them as a monster just because of what they're into, regardless of whether it's consensual or not. There's nothing wrong with group sex, there's nothing wrong with spit roasting, there's nothing wrong with any of this provided that it's consensual. But many voices in the Irish media - for instance, those who are blaming porn on this and questioning sexual morality in general - are, whether openly or not, putting forward the idea that some types of sex are inherently negative or wrong, regardless of consent or enjoyment by all parties.

Personally, I see this as a massive problem. In fact, as a man who happens to be a sexual sub, I actually feel that I have more cultural freedom to be myself and be ok with myself than a sub woman of the same age would, because as a sub guy it's just about me and what I'm into. But for sub women, you get self-styled feminists hinting or openly stating that their kinks are inherently wrong because they reinforce the patriarchy yadda yadda yadda, in other words "what you like in the bedroom is totally irrelevant, because you're part of something bigger and you must behave with the advancement of gender equality in mind in all areas of your life, whether you personally want to or not". It's no different to feminists accusing stay at home mothers of letting down the sisterhood because they're "submitting" to traditional gender roles - the fact that the woman in question might actually enjoy the choices she's made to adhere to that lifestyle is secondary to the idea of collectivism.

Basically, had this case involved vanilla sex in the missionary position, I'd bet my life savings that it wouldn't have garnered nearly as much comment or controversy. The case is attracting such huge attention because in a lot of peoples' eyes, the sex acts in question - consensual or non consensual - were themselves inherently wrong, which makes the lads who enjoyed them inherently bad people - consent be damned.