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

v638sg7k1a92bx

Inmyownworld wrote: »

Not guilty doesn't equate to innocent.

Just like them being found not guilty doesn't equate to her making it up.

Not surprised with the verdict but I am surprised how quickly they reached it.

Every one of their lives changed after that, hers and theirs.

They don't need to prove their innocence, they are presumed innocent from outset and have been found not guilty by a jury of their peers. From looking at twitter, many people would like to do away with the presumption of innocence and due process.

I also find interesting the number of people who suddenly take issue with the amount of time it took the jury to deliberate, if the verdict had been different would the time frame have been an issue for them?

Last Friday (less than a week ago) it took the jury seven hours and 32 minutes of deliberation to deliver the guilty verdict in the murder of sx month old Joshua Sussbier by John Tighe https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/john-tighe-given-life-sentence-for-murdering-6-month-old-son-1.3437970

Do people think that justice has not been served because of the amount of time it took the jury to deliberate?

What part of the evidence do people have an issue with that has not been heard by the jury and would have resulted in a different outcome?

Deusexmachina

irishrebe wrote: »

That is exactly what victim blaming is. You're implying she's a liar because she didn't react the way you wanted her to. And tbh, I don't think the reaction was even that weird.

I am totally saying she's a liar. Because she lied. She has put four innocent men through years of agony, destroyed their careers, cost them a fortune, dragged their good names through the mud, terrified their families about what would happen to them...

And she was lying. They didnt rape her. It was consensual. She realised she had made a big mistake and decided to blame them entirely for it. And to ruin them.

And she has no regrets apparently....

razorblunt

The Talking Bread wrote: »

He truly sounds like a tosser.

MissShihTzu wrote: »

Looks as though he's learned nothing from this. He might be innocent, but he should have kept his head down.

Do people ... do people think that’s real?

c.p.w.g.w

MissShihTzu wrote: »

Looks as though he's learned nothing from this. He might be innocent, but he should have kept his head down.

His had to keep his head down since he was charged. To me it's the response of a man happy to have his freedom tonight and making light of what he feels was false allegation, which his been vindicated of in a courtrooms

The Talking Bread

Deusexmachina wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

That is exactly what victim blaming is. You're implying she's a liar because she didn't react the way you wanted her to. And tbh, I don't think the reaction was even that weird.

I am totally saying she's a liar. Because she lied. She has put four innocent men through years of agony, destroyed their careers, cost them a fortune, dragged their good names through the mud, terrified their families about what would happen to them...

And she was lying. They didnt rape her. It was consensual. She realised she had made a big mistake and decided to blame them entirely for it. And to ruin them.

And she has no regrets apparently....

Your opinion.

Your opinion.

Stupid post.

david75

xtal191 wrote: »

Has to be fake

It’s real. You’ll now see people defending his right to celebrate.

dark crystal

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

False rape accusations by sobered up slags and bunny boilers must be met with mandatory 20-year prison sentances.

Only way to protect innocent men.

You stay classy there, Carlos.

And people moan and bitch about the crazy nutters on Twitter...

irishrebe

Deusexmachina wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

That is exactly what victim blaming is. You're implying she's a liar because she didn't react the way you wanted her to. And tbh, I don't think the reaction was even that weird.

I am totally saying she's a liar. Because she lied. She has put four innocent men through years of agony, destroyed their careers, cost them a fortune, dragged their good names through the mud, terrified their families about what would happen to them...

And she was lying. They didnt rape her. It was consensual. She realised she had made a big mistake and decided to blame them entirely for it. And to ruin them.

And she has no regrets apparently....

You have absolutely no idea whether that is true or not. But it didn't take long for your true bias to come out. You do realise that the men being found guilty doesn't mean she didn't consider herself to have consented? Why are you assuming she's a malicious lying scumbag who purposely ruined people's lives?

CarlosHarpic

retro:electro wrote: »

At the end of the day, whatever your feelings on this case may be- there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute. Personally I don’t know how the jury reached a decision so quickly, as every day when the summaries went out my mind changed. For me, the whole thing hinges on the witness who walked in. She was the crux of it and I think her testament was 90% of the reason they got off. Whatever your feelings on this, whether you think they should have been found guilty or not- I think we can all agree that the texts they shared about her the next day were nothing short of disgusting, and they showed their true nature. Okay, so they may not have raped her. But they showed her absolutely no regard and spoke about her as if she was a piece of meat.

That's because she chose to be a piece of meat. They didn't ambush an innocent girl returning from a flower arranging class.

Personal behavior = consequences. Slags and sluts actually do exist.

The Talking Bread

razorblunt wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

He truly sounds like a tosser.

MissShihTzu wrote: »

Looks as though he's learned nothing from this. He might be innocent, but he should have kept his head down.

Do people ... do people think that’s real?

I just seen link here. And the blue tick. Didn't delve into it.

I assume it's not (hopefully )

miocicmma

Now that these men have been cleared. Shouldn't this woman face some consequences for falsely accusing them of rape? Couldn't they sue her for defamation or character or something similar?

Strazdas

Deusexmachina wrote: »

I am totally saying she's a liar. Because she lied. She has put four innocent men through years of agony, destroyed their careers, cost them a fortune, dragged their good names through the mud, terrified their families about what would happen to them...

And she was lying. They didnt rape her. It was consensual. She realised she had made a big mistake and decided to blame them entirely for it. And to ruin them.

And she has no regrets apparently....

"Lying" would mean she went to the police and into court with the intention of telling a load of fibs and untruths and stitching the four men up (for whatever reason).

It looks far more likely that she believed she had been raped / sexually assaulted by the men, hence her crying all the way home in the taxi etc. If you believe something to be true, then you're not telling lies.

dark crystal

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

That's because she chose to be a piece of meat. They didn't ambush an innocent girl returning from a flower arranging class.

True colours coming out big time.

stevejr

This is my personal view of it, the plaintiff willingly entered into a threesome with Jackson and Olding, she then saw the female witness enter the room and immediately realised that she would be labelled derogitorily and her name blackened on Social media and her wider community in Belfast as a result....she cried rape to her friends to try and mitigate what must have been an awful embarrassment.

But, her friends reacted not in the way she wanted or expected ie; giving her private support and backing her on social media, they reacted by being dead set on her going to the police(as real friends would...), so what was she to do at that point?

She persisted, and we are where we are...

No winners just losers. Sad for everyone involved. Dirty laundry, headline Policing, five young lives tarnished.

spookwoman

blanch152 wrote: »

This can be viewed on very many different levels.

The grey areas of consent are huge. You meet someone, you go to bed consensually with them, but something changes. Do they know you well enough to sense that from your change of mood, your change of tone? If if they do, is their judgment impaired by drink, or yours?

I have no problem with "no means no", it is the area of "yes sometimes means no" or "maybe yes, maybe no" that it becomes a problem.

Don't think there are grey areas even if it starts as consensual once that turns to non consensual maybe because it get rough or something done the other doesn't want i believe that's assault / rape and if there is drink involved it doesn't matter. Someone is doing something to another person against their will.

Sheeps

#IBelieveHer on twitter roughly equates to #IAssumeGuiltAndDontCareAboutJustice

dark crystal

miocicmma wrote: »

Now that these men have been cleared. Shouldn't this woman face some consequences for falsely accusing them of rape? Couldn't they sue her for defamation or character or something similar?

She wasn't found to be lying or making false accusations. They were found not guilty as the prosecution failed to provide enough evidence to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

irishrebe

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No, nothing to do with the results of the trial. Purely based on the hundreds of archaic opinions displayed on this thread.

Yeah, and what are these 'archaic' opinions then?

And for all your Ireland bashing maybe take a closer look at some European countries. Ever see the rape stats in Sweden? And how these crimes are covered up as so as not to embarrass the establishment? And this is a country run by a 'feminist' government.

The most truly embarrassing part of all is that you don't see it. There's the problem. You truly believe it's normal to accuse a possible rape victim of making it all up for badness, for a start.
You do realise that Sweden has such a high recorded incidence of rape because a) people feel safe reporting it and b) the definition of rape is much wider than it is in Ireland? Not a ****ing chance I'd report a rape in Ireland, to be named and shamed in my community and on social media, be interrogated about my sex life and then be called a liar if my attackers were found not guilty. Not a ****ing chance. I'd get the first plane over to England, deal with any resulting pregnancy and have counselling. Same as most rape victims I know did.

Ejeca

Saying the decision of not guilty does not mean they are innocent is a bit contrary. Someone is innocent until proven guilty, if they are cleared of all wrong doing then they remain innocent. That's the basis of justice. If you're disputing that you're basically disputing every single case whether someone is convicted guilty or freed of all wrong doing. And that's just inherently flawed.

What about someone who has sworn innocence all throughout a trial, yet is convicted as guilty. Using the "not guilty =/= innocent" analogy, surely that means guilty =/=guilty. It makes no sense just like a lot of the #Ibelieveher stuff going around. How can anyone posting under that hashtag think that they know better than the people on the jury and the judge? It just seems like another instalment of the growing male-female divide as a result of radical feminism.

Tweets like:
"**** Paddy Jackson and every other LAD in the country defending him"

"Sitting in the library furious fighting back tears about the paddy Jackson case.
Ireland you have failed your women once again. Disgusted" (Case was in the North but like that matters to this person)

"Let today prove that you can have all the evidence in the world and they will never believe you. But we as your sisters do. Paddy Jackson is a rapist and so is Steward Olding."

"Paddy Jackson may have been found not guilty by a jury of his peers but he’s been outed as the sleazy, misogynistic, entitled little prick he truly is. Hopefully that will prevent other young girls finding themselves in vulnerable situations with him and his pack of wolves."

Deep down these women are just upset that their horrific outlook on life and men didn't get their victory today and they can't shove their agenda further down people's throats. In reality nobody won today as the men's lives are in tatters and will forever have this hanging over them and the woman will probably face abuse for the rest of her life. As a man you'd be afraid to say hi to a woman, and as a woman you'll probably be scared to death of reporting assault with the comments floating around.

Also that tweet is obviously fake. Paddy Jackson hasn't tweeted in ages and has his Twitter locked. Have people been living under a rock for the last year or so, those fake tweet generators are everywhere.

retro:electro

CarlosHarpic wrote: »

That's because she chose to be a piece of meat. They didn't ambush an innocent girl returning from a flower arranging class.

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

Faugheen

miocicmma wrote: »

Now that these men have been cleared. Shouldn't this woman face some consequences for falsely accusing them of rape? Couldn't they sue her for defamation or character or something similar?

I didn't realise she was found guilty of falsely accusing them of rape.

martingriff

bogwalrus wrote: »

Possibly because she didn't know what she was getting herself into. I imagine her family and peers might have influenced her to take action also.

I have a feeling your spot on here. I say on the night it was all go (I know bad choice of word) but then when she woke up it was what on earth did I do that for and then when other heard about it and how now she was so upset by it she may have been persuaded it was rape.

Paddy Jacksons lawyer was on the news tonight giving out that the woman's name and picture go out and that she did what was promised in relation to her identity given it was an open court case anyone could come in and her name was mentioned daily along with descriptions and this need to change to the Irish model

freshpopcorn

Sheeps wrote: »

#IBelieveHer on twitter roughly equates to #IAssumeGuiltAndDontCareAboutJustice

My only issue with the hashtag thing is I know people who've used it and haven't followed the case and only read a few headlines. If you try and discuss it with them they don't know the details of the case.

dark crystal

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

That poster added to his post after that comment and listen, I suspect those whatsapp messages are tame in comparison to this guy's views on women....

Muahahaha

What a strange case.

For me the evidence of Dara Florance was what got them off the charges. She walked into the room and testified that the Jackson and Olding asked her did she want to join in. Hardly what anyone would expect to happen if a rape was underway.

However Dara Florances evidence also conflicts with Paddy Jacksons. She said she was 100% certain that Jackson was penetrating the girl whereas Jackson says he did no such thing and only ever fingered her. So who is telling the truth here because their accounts of what happened in the bedroom do not tally. Then you also have Blaine McIllory who says that he got a brief blow job whereas the girl says that she didnt engage him sexually at all and actually ran out of the room when he arrived in naked.

Then you have the girl being upset in the taxi, I dont think anyone can dispute this as Harrisons texts said she was hysterical and "that it wasnt going to end well". The taxi driver also testified that Harrison appeared to be talking in code so it certainly appears that something fishy was going on.

Finally the four lads meeting up the next day in a cafe. What is suss here is that of the four NONE of them brought their phones with them. That in itself does not mean they are guilty but I think most people would say in this day and age people dont tend to leave the house without their phone. If one of them did it fair enough but all four? I think the prosecution was correct when they said that the cafe meeting the next day was to get their stories straight.

Overall I think how it all went down was that Jackson, Olding & McIllory had this thing of bringing back 3 or 4 girls to the house after a night on the razz. They all knew that this was in the hope of group sex (McIllorys text "any chance of a threesome" to Jackson upstairs would strongly suggest this). I think all 3 men were down for group sex but their technique (for want of a better word) on how to make it happen was totally messed up. Instead of propositioning the girl into group sex their strategy seems to have been along the lines of just springing it on the her when she was already in bed naked. Man no.2 walks in the door "oh whats going on here, heh, heh, Ill join in". It is like like something you see in porn. Then next comes man no.3 and the same happens.

Given the above I think that what actually happened that night was the sex with Jackson was consensual. What the girl wasnt consenting to was a threesome then into a foursome. This escalation in the bedroom was just sprung on her without anyone really asking her if she was cool with it. That is when things rapidly went downhill and I think the texts show that the lads knew it too.

Anyway despite all the above I think the correct verdict was reached. There was too many doubts for them to get convicted of this. However I dont believe they are completely innocent here and their actions would suggest that they at least knew something was up. There has to be a lesson here for any bunch of lads that if you want to have group sex at least make sure it is okay with the girl before any clothes come off. Dont just think that she is a slut and of course she wants it. Thats what really got them into trouble here, they made a huge assumption and it back fired in a way that will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Appledreams15

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

Right, because women never talk dirty about men? Maybe we should air some embarrassing texts you've sent? Or are you so holy and pious?

Women do not talk about men like this. Ever.

I've heard men in Ireland talk about women disgustingly a good few times.

Remember the email that went around the accounting firm in Ireland 'we have new flange'(new vagina) and ten pictures of women.
A man in my town smirked and said , 'sure everyone does it'

Ejeca

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

Is it wrong to make those comments, yes but men make them and women make them too online an offline. Whatsapp and private groups exist and men and women comment on the other sex all the time and make sexual comments like the one's above. You'd be incredibly naive to deny it. I've seen it myself in groups I am part of and girls I know openly have shared screenshots of them or just showed me the phone of them commenting on some lads dick size or performance or whatever. Is it okay, no but it happens and that's just the reality. Like someone else said before, there's very few of us if any who'd like our private messages released to the public, let alone private group messages leaked which are far more likely to be racy and sexually themed.

spookwoman

Ejeca wrote: »

Saying the decision of not guilty does not mean they are innocent is a bit contrary. Someone is innocent until proven guilty, if they are cleared of all wrong doing then they remain innocent. That's the basis of justice. If you're disputing that you're basically disputing every single case whether someone is convicted guilty or freed of all wrong doing. And that's just inherently flawed.

merriam-webster dictionary - Not Guilty

a verdict rendered by a jury acquitting a criminal defendant upon finding that the prosecution has not proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
It means that they could still have committed the crimes they were charged with it and that there was no evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they did it.

Huntergonzo

david75 wrote: »

Instead we have a trial by social media where a young woman is being castigated for possibly being raped yet her case wasn’t upheld.

Forget social media, I typed Paddy Jackson's name into Google earlier today and their was a flood of vitriolic hatred for him on Twitter, with the posionous hashtag of #ibelieveher

These people have no interest in a fair trial, in their eyes all 4 were guilty from the very start and nothing else would have been acceptable. It's a highly dangerous way of thinking.

AudreyHepburn

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Women do not talk about men like this. Ever.

You can’t seriously be that naive!

Wheeliebin30

Can someone not just set up a #idontbelieveher account?

Faugheen

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

What a great idea. What could go wrong with prosecuting possible rape victims? You do realise that the defendants being found not guilty just means that it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the rape happened? That doesn't mean the woman is a liar and that she made the accusations maliciously. There is absolutely nothing at all I have read which supports the idea that she did this maliciously. Yes, sometimes it does happen that a woman reports a rape maliciously, and if there is plenty of evidence to support that, it can be investigated. But why assume this is the case?

Are so naive as to think women never lie about rape? That men are never falsely imprisoned? ****in hell. rapists deserve heavily penalty, but come on, you still have to be innocent until proven guilty .

And she hasn't been proven guilty of anything either so why don't the last 4 words of your post stand to her?

MissShihTzu

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

His had to keep his head down since he was charged. To me it's the response of a man happy to have his freedom tonight and making light of what he feels was false allegation, which his been vindicated of in a courtrooms

Of course he's happy. Paddy et al was found Not Guilty. I was thinking that lightening might strike twice. He seems stupid and arrogant enough to have that happen.

A sensible man would have had a few jars at home with friends and kept out of mischief if he wanted to celebrate, which Paddy had every right to do...

Spanish Eyes

To my mind I don't think that the prosecution lawyers were on the ball.

Therefore the defence had the upper hand.

That is the way rape cases go to my mind anyway, the victim (sorry) has to prove it more than the suspected perpetrator does. The focus is all on the victim.

I do know that a very small proportion of rape cases result in a conviction, and that is usually where there is evidence of trauma.

I don't know how things will ever change. One word against the other, but the victim is actually on trial really. She was hours and days being cross examined by the four barristers representing the accused. The victim had only one, representing her, the CPS.

One thing I will say though, I think the fact that in ROI the accused is entitled to anonymity unless found guilty, or anonymity is preserved to protect the victim. I think that is probably sound.

spurious

Muahahaha wrote: »

However Dara Florances evidence also conflicts with Paddy Jacksons. She said she was 100% certain that Jackson was penetrating the girl whereas Jackson says he did no such thing and only ever fingered her. So who is telling the truth here because their accounts of what happened in the bedroom do not tally.

This. Can't believe highly paid barristers didn't go after that.
If you believe she is a credible witness, then the lads are lying.

Still can't believe they discussed it for so little time.

Appledreams15

Ejeca wrote: »

Is it wrong to make those comments, yes but men make them and women make them too online an offline. Whatsapp and private groups exist and men and women comment on the other sex all the time and make sexual comments like the one's above. You'd be incredibly naive to deny it. I've seen it myself in groups I am part of and girls I know openly have shared screenshots of them or just showed me the phone of them commenting on some lads dick size or performance or whatever. Is it okay, no but it happens and that's just the reality. Like someone else said before, there's very few of us if any who'd like our private messages released to the public, let alone private group messages leaked which are far more likely to be racy and sexually themed.

Are you a man? I dont believe this. No woman I know, and I know alot, has ever sent me texts or pictures of men that she has been with sexually. We have more respect for men and manners.
However I have heard numerous men brag about women they have been with, or taking it to the next level of being the utter macho dickhead, commenting on how 'bad in bed' she is. The way some men talk about women, constantly treating them with disrespect, badly needs to change.

Are we a human society or a primitive neanderthal society?
Why are women being treated badly in so many places. Some of what goes on is actually unbelievable.

irishrebe

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

What a great idea. What could go wrong with prosecuting possible rape victims? You do realise that the defendants being found not guilty just means that it cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the rape happened? That doesn't mean the woman is a liar and that she made the accusations maliciously. There is absolutely nothing at all I have read which supports the idea that she did this maliciously. Yes, sometimes it does happen that a woman reports a rape maliciously, and if there is plenty of evidence to support that, it can be investigated. But why assume this is the case?

Are so naive as to think women never lie about rape? That men are never falsely imprisoned? ****in hell. rapists deserve heavily penalty, but come on, you still have to be innocent until proven guilty .

I even said at the end of my post that some women lie about rape. Can you not read?

dark crystal

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

If you were raped and chose not to go to the police here, then that's on you.

Why would any woman bother going to the Police just to have her past raked over, her underwear put on show to a courtroom, be branded a slag and a liar and then more than likely see the accused walk free?

As I said earlier, I freely admit don't think I'd be strong enough to do it.

Huntergonzo

C__MC wrote: »

+1

Just scrolled through twitter, terrible vile comments about the lads being spouted. For the accused, it’s all moral support and #IBelieveHer. I turned off Matt cooper earlier, it was almost as if the lads should have been concvicted.

The 4 lads have lost everything. Whatever about Olding and Jackson, mc ilroy lost his scholarship for business in the US. Im sure Harrison has lost credibility to.

There are no winners but the lads are getting an unfair bashing. And yet they are not guilty.

The world is crazy

Fact of the matter is, white males don't make good victims, again it's quite apparent to me that this verdict is very unwelcome by the media at large. The lack of respect shown to the 4 lads has been a disgrace and the outpour of support for the complainant has been very noticable.

Tigger

spookwoman wrote: »

Her name is protected.
From PSNI Statement "In addition to this, she was named on social media sites during the trial contrary to her legal entitlement. Any breach of this entitlement is and will be investigated."

How ?

Ejeca

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Are you a man? I dont believe this. No woman I know, and I know alot, has ever sent me texts or pictures of men that she has been with sexually. We with have more reapect for men and manners.
However I have heard numerous men brag about women they have been with, or taking it to the next level of being the utter macho dickhead, commenting on how '**** in bed' she is. The way some men talk about women, constantly treating them with disrespect, badly needs to change.

Are we a human society or a primitive neanderthal society?
Why are women being treated badly in so many places. Some of what goes on is actually unbelievable.

Yes I am male, not that it matters. Well it happens I am afraid to tell you. I've even got screenshots of pictures of me asleep in a bed next to a girl who thought it would be funny to take an after sex selfie and sent it around. All a bit of a laugh really although I can see why some people might be upset. I have thicker skin though and have no issues with it really. But comments about sex and "how was he" are rampant and women are as open about it as men are, certainly from my experiences from college to work to being abroad on holidays etc etc. It cannot be a coincidence and it is not as women aren't these creatures who don't talk about sex or don't like sex, au contraire they are just like men. Shock, humans like the same things and talk about the same things in the same ways.

dark crystal

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

Because you can't just convict a man on your word. You say someone raped you, well you have to be able to prove it.

And you're forgetting this woman has anonymity under the law while the men had their names ruined.

Unfortunately rape is a crime which, a lot of the time, depends on someone's word against someone else's word. That's the rub.

By the way, I agree that all parties should be anonymous until guilt has been proven.

Tigger

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

What if she had sex willingly and then they talked like that afterwards
Ok they are being clowns but she didn’t know that’s what they were saying
In this scenario what is she for pressing charges

spookwoman

Tigger wrote: »

How ?

By law Victims of a sex offence are entitled to remain anonymous for life under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
10 people that released Ched Evans accusers name went before the courts.

Zonda999

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

Whatever they said in a Whatsapp group was a private conversation. The only reason you know about it is because it was used in evidence in a court of law for a crime they were found not guilty of.

I think its fair to say that the vast majority of people would not want to be judged on the basis of what they say in a private conversation between their friends. I know I wouldn't.

The fact of the matter is what was said in that group was not in the public domain and only is because of this trial. Seeing as they were found not guilty, I can't see how this IRFU "review" can take any action against them. Do you really think many other "celebrities" or sports stars don't use similar language in private conversations ? If you think they don't then, you're quite frankly, deluded, in my opinion.

Furthermore because of the above, I'd say that anyone thinking they should now have their professional contracts terminated, as a result of this trial, only thinks so because the verdict did not confirm with their "world view".

I'm not concurring with what was said by the way, only making the point what was said goes on all the time behind closed doors.

Faugheen

Charles Bukowski wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

And she hasn't been proven guilty of anything either so why don't the last 4 words of your post stand to her?

What you on about? I never said she lied. Hey maybe she believes she was raped, lots of girls do after drunk sex. Doesn't make it so.

What I'm against is the #Ibelivie her ****. The lads got a fair trial and were found innocent. It's the only way the justice system can work. Even the most heinous pedo must have a fair trial.

I'm on about you going on a tangent about fake accusers in response to a post about the complainant.

People are more than entitled to believe her story. And from what I can see, a lot of the #IBelieveHer stuff is in relation to how complainants (potential rape victims) are the ones treated as if they're on trial when it comes to rape cases, and it's absolutely true. Numerous times there was inclinations the defence were saying she was asking for it, which is just not true because men aren't held in the same regard if the shoe was on the other foot.

Is there any wonder that more women (or men for that matter) don't come forward to report a rape?

And there was no 'innocent' ruling in court. It was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt which I should point out again is the call I agree with, but there is absolutely no way you, me or anyone can say that she was lying as a result.

Your posts are going after people defending her, if your beliefs are as you say then why aren't you going after people who are calling her a liar and a slut also? She wasn't proven to be either of those terms.

If you really believe what you're saying, you'd be a lot more balanced than you currently are being because of your vitriol towards the #IBelieveHer movement.

martingriff

retro:electro wrote: »

Even if it was consensual- she didn’t ask or choose to be spoken about the next day in such a vile nature. “Spit roasted” “like a merry go round” “top shaggers”.. get fcuked.
If you think it’s okay to speak about women like that after you’ve been intimate with them then you need to have a good look at yourself. They may have been found not guilty but their general attitude towards her afterwards was disgusting and for that they should be ashamed

Your right she does not deserve to be spoken like that no one should BUT that does not make them guilty of a crime. Does it make them been guilty vile and dirty opinions yes but that is not against the law.

Castigate them for that by all means and this may be the reason we see these 2 been pushed sideways out of Ulster and the Irish team

Spanish Eyes

There is nothing more to say here really. The four accused have been acquitted, and there is no appeal possible against the verdict of a jury.

The woman could of course take a civil case where the burden of proof is not as high as in a rape case. Who knows.

Otherwise it is all over really. And I have no interest in the famous four's future earnings or sponsorship. They will survive. Give it a few months.

They will probably just carry on or go to Australia or something with a clean passport/visa, as is their right. They have no convictions now do they?

sightband

dark crystal wrote: »

Please don't be disillusioned. This forum has an unhealthy bias against women's issues - anyone who discusses them is instantly categorised as a feminazi or anti men.

Look after yourself and don't be letting strangers on the internet upset you at all

To call them feminazi or ant men would be kind as it would imply that the poster was somewhat coherent and in a right state of mind...that post seems to indicate an absolute nutcase or someone who has been on the sherry since they finished their coco pops at 8am this mornin

Tigger

spookwoman wrote: »

By law Victims of a sex offence are entitled to remain anonymous for life under the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
10 people that released Ched Evans accusers name went before the courts.

She wasn’t a victim tho ?