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

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

No, it's NOT normal. The language used is absolutely vile and misogynistic. If you think it's normal to refer to a woman you just slept with as a 'sl*t', then you have a problem. There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

So women dont refer to men as pigs or dogs?

You or your friends didnt get all hot under the collar about the 50 shades saga?? or magic mike??

Women and men are the exact same. They both talk about sexual conquests with their friends and treat potential sexual partners as meat (as part of their story). I remember one story a friend from work told me about this dog (guy) she was with and he had a tiny thing. She told me she couldnt feel anything and he was a minger anyway so she just made him go down on her and said she had to leave because she had work in the morning.

Women are just as bad as men and ironically its the ones who want us to be equal that cant see that

GreeBo

Sidebaro wrote: »

Well then your intent went over my head. Mostly because there was no allusion to your expose.

Perhaps if you follow the preceding posts it will be more enlightening.

Sidebaro wrote: »

Nothing. Incriminating was probably a poor choice of words. Basically, made them look scummy. Their texts made them look a lot worse than her texts.

Incriminating is a pretty specific word with a specific meaning, there is a world of difference between not liking something and that thing being incriminating!

Benteke

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.H

GreeBo wrote: »

a lack of evidence proving guilt led to a verdict of not guilty.
This does not prove innocence as a jury does not return a verdict of innocence, in fact no one proves innocence, its up to the prosecution to prove guilt.

the jury decides guilty or not guilty. They rely on evidence and statements. The evidence and statements provided to them led to a not guilty verdict.

That means the evidence and statements proved not guilty

Mr.H

the_syco wrote: »

How many of the lads had the threesome?

In here or on the night??

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No, it's NOT normal. The language used is absolutely vile and misogynistic. If you think it's normal to refer to a woman you just slept with as a 'sl*t', then you have a problem. There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

So women dont refer to men as pigs or dogs?

You or your friends didnt get all hot under the collar about the 50 shades saga?? or magic mike??

Women and men are the exact same. They both talk about sexual conquests with their friends and treat potential sexual partners as meat (as part of their story). I remember one story a friend from work told me about this dog (guy) she was with and he had a tiny thing. She told me she couldnt feel anything and he was a minger anyway so she just made him go down on her and said she had to leave because she had work in the morning.

Women are just as bad as men and ironically its the ones who want us to be equal that cant see that

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

GreeBo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Which is exactly the issue I have with your posts, you are implying a predatory aspect to it without any evidence of such.

Sidebaro

c.p.w.g.w wrote:

If I go out tonight, get blind drunk and walk into a dodgy area and get jumped. I'm partly at fault for getting to state which leads me into a situation I'd not do when in full control of my facilities.

I don't really agree. Your level of drunkness wouldn't warrant being jumped? You could just as easily have been sober and gotten jumped in this scenario, no?

Mr.H

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

How do you know?

They always say not guilty as the evidence doesnt show any guilt

Benteke

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

No it wasn't. It was in Northern Ireland and it was a Not Guilty case.

wexie

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

Out of curiosity what happens in the case of a 'not proven' verdict?

Does it still lead to some form of consequence as a 'guilty' verdict would or is it more a kind of 'we think you're shady as **** but just can't really prove it' type thing?

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

Well this girl was a poshy so its not just scumbags

You never been on a hen night? Your in a dream world

John_D80

Benteke wrote: »

Scotland have it right they have 3 verdicts, Guilty, Not Guilty, Not Proven

This was a Not Proven case

You have no possible way of knowing what verdict the jury would have given if they had a third option.

GreeBo

Mr.H wrote: »

the jury decides guilty or not guilty. They rely on evidence and statements. The evidence and statements provided to them led to a not guilty verdict.

That means the evidence and statements proved not guilty

ARGH!

No it doesnt, it shows a lack of evidence proving guilt.

These are two totally different things, proof of innocence is not the same as lacking proof of guilt.

One is proof of something, the other is a lack of proof of the opposite.

c.p.w.g.w

Sidebaro wrote: »

I don't really agree. Your level of drunkness wouldn't warrant being jumped? You could just as easily have been sober and gotten jumped in this scenario, no?

Never said it...But I bare some responsibility because I was so drunk and thus made bad uncharacteristic decisions. The people who jumped me are still responsible.

irishrebe

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

So you're equating being drunk in the company of men with being drunk and walking into a dodgy area? And you don't see what you're implying with that?

I was referring to getting drunk in general. And how it affects decision making process

But with regards this case. Maybe the girl agreed to the threesome because she was drunk, and decision she wouldn't have made sober or with less alcohol in her system.

Which is why many countries with modern legal systems consider an extremely drunk person incapable of giving consent.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

irishrebe wrote: »

There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

OK then and fair enough. Would you be OK with joking about a woman being well endowed in the chest department, or a better fit(pun intended)of having a particularly snug vagina? I seriously doubt it. Indeed I'd be willing to bet that would be seen as "sexist" and treating her like a sex object/piece of meat. The cognitive dissonance of the feminist in full view.

ShowMeTheCash

GreeBo wrote: »

ARGH!

No it doesnt, it shows a lack of evidence proving guilt.

These are two totally different things, proof of innocence is not the same as lacking proof of guilt.

One is proof of something, the other is a lack of proof of the opposite.

s/He does not get it!

SAMTALK

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Never said it...But I bare some responsibility because I was so drunk and thus made bad uncharacteristic decisions. The people who jumped me are still responsible.

Is this not the view George Hook got blasted for ?

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

Well this girl was a poshy so its not just scumbags

You never been on a hen night? Your in a dream world

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

Which is why many countries with modern legal systems consider an extremely drunk person incapable of giving consent.

We are one of those countries and that law is bollox

The "drunk person" is always a woman. Not a man. Only a woman can be considered too drunk to give consent but it doesnt happen the other way around

I actually can't believe "throwing" her home is being used as evidence of anything. It takes a lot to surprise me around stories and issues like these but that's done it.

Adamocovic

Think I must stay off social media for a while.

Can't face seeing another photo of protests in Cork, Galway, Dublin about the failing of Irish law to protect victims, regarding a trial that wasn't even in our country.

Wibbs

irishrebe wrote: »

Which is why many countries with modern legal systems consider an extremely drunk person incapable of giving consent.

What happens if the man is equally drunk? He takes responsibility for his actions(fine) but also for hers?

GreeBo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, she did seem to be preying on these famous sportsmen.

Wow, look how easy that was.

c.p.w.g.w

irishrebe wrote: »

Which is why many countries with modern legal systems consider an extremely drunk person incapable of giving consent.

But that can unfairly affect males, who may have been drunker and unable to consent...

Strazdas

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Also, they were three friends and she didn't know any of them. There's definitely a power imbalance there, even in a social setting, never mind something happening in a bedroom. I'm not suggesting this amounted to rape but she may have felt somewhat pressurised to go along with things as they unfolded. A person can say yes to something but still feel very uncomfortable with it.

Wibbs

Adamocovic wrote: »

Think I must stay off social media for a while.

Can't face seeing another photo of protests in Cork, Galway, Dublin about the failing of Irish law to protect victims, regarding a trial that wasn't even in our country.

Idiots gonna id.

Benteke

Mr.H wrote: »

How do you know?

They always say not guilty as the evidence doesnt show any guilt

Because they only have 2 choices in the north, Guilty or not guilty they have no other option, if they did then this could well be a not proven case, It's a 3rd option I would like in our courts in the south as it puts the onus on the legal team for not proven their guilt and it protects women in this sort of case from been called a liar which I don't think she is

GreeBo

Wibbs wrote: »

What happens if the man is equally drunk? He takes responsibility for his actions(fine) but also for hers?

Pretty much, whatever you do, dont have drunken sex in a US college as there will only be one loser (Unless you happen to be really good at sports of course)

ShowMeTheCash

Mr.H wrote: »

We are one of those countries and that law is bollox

The "drunk person" is always a woman. Not a man. Only a woman can be considered too drunk to give consent but it doesnt happen the other way around

Legally a woman cannot rape a man.

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

I wonder who buys all the novelty willies for hen parties?

Must be for research purposes since women are so much better behaved than men.

Benteke

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wasn't. It was in Northern Ireland and it was a Not Guilty case.

That's why I put Scotland in the sentence, Reading would be your friend

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

What are you on about?? Im sure that the lads were "joking" also in the whatsapp but it doesnt mean they were not being dicks.

You said its ok if they are joking. So was it ok for them to say it? Or do you need to look up the word contradiction?

So at these hen parties you attend there is never inflatable willies or naked dolls or strippers or penis straws or dildos or games where you go up and touch a guys ass or get a guy to snog you or bla bla bla.

Women are the exact same!!!

As for your class remark, that just shows your actual lack of class

razorblunt

oneilla wrote: »

You'll probably squabble that this isn't a majority but the 2002 Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report found that 42% of women and 28% of men had experienced sexual abuse or assault. Of women, 10% of this was "penetrative abuse" (3% for men).

I'm not sure what you'd mean by squabble but in the purest sense 42% isn't "most", but ignoring that and focusing on the 10%, again that's not most, I'd completely agree and easily believe that 42% of women would admit to be being sexually assaulted. I'd actually expect the number for both men and women to be higher for sexual assault. Almost every woman I know has a story to tell in that regard.
But the tweet I was referencing clearly alluded that "most" have been through "this", "this" being rape. That's just not the case.

Sidebaro wrote: »

There are subcategories of rape and I would believe that a lot more women than you would believe fit into these subcategories. I think people assume rape is either aggressive assault or 'changing your mind', there's a massive grey area in between those two things hence the lack of understanding. Should it all be labelled under the term rape? Probably not, as it leads to this confusion, but I do believe that a huge amount of women have been sexually assaulted or harassed or some variation.

Yeah, I fully believe a huge number of woman have had some form of harassment or assault, I'd be shocked if I asked around the women I know and not one of them came back saying "no, never happened".

irishrebe

Wibbs wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

OK then and fair enough. Would you be OK with joking about a woman being well endowed in the chest department, or a better fit(pun intended)of having a particularly snug vagina? I seriously doubt it. Indeed I'd be willing to bet that would be seen as "sexist" and treating her like a sex object/piece of meat. The cognitive dissonance of the feminist in full view.

It's hilarious how you completely disregard the power imbalance which has existed for millennia. Women WERE (and are, in much of the world) basically nothing more than objects to be traded and possessed. Hence why it is so jarring to hear a woman dehumanised in that way. Men have NEVER been objects for women. Sure, some crass women like to joke about men's penis size, but it's not remotely comparable, given the historical and cultural context. And yes, jokes are constantly made about a women's chest size and sexual attraction, on TV and radio, in 2018, and are laughed at. There's still a difference between making a joke about a woman with big boobs easily floating in a swimming pool, and describing a woman you have just had sex with as a sl*t with a loose vagina.

GreeBo

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Legally a woman cannot rape a man.

Rape, at least in the UK, requires penetration with a penis.

Anything else would be sexual assault.

Blud

Mr.H wrote: »

Ok try to stick to the actual trail and not some fantasy you have.

Did the evidence provided lead to a guilty or not guilty?

Simple question

Evidence does not lead to a not guilty verdict. There is a presumption from the start that they are not guilty, the prosecution attempt to produvecevidence that they are guilty.

The prosecution failed to produvecevidence that they are guilty, so they were found not to be guilty.

No evidence was produced to show that they were not guilty.

Nobody proved they were not guilty.

Your outlook on this is overly simplistic and massively incorrect.

Mr.H

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Legally a woman cannot rape a man.

Also a woman cant be convicted of having sex with a minor.

A boy and girl age 16 can have sex and he will be done for statutory rape.

Also in one of the states if a man and woman have a glass of wine and have sex. Then legally he has raped her. "unable to give consent".

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

What are you on about?? Im sure that the lads were "joking" also in the whatsapp but it doesnt mean they were not being dicks.

You said its ok if they are joking. So was it ok for them to say it? Or do you need to look up the word contradiction?

So at these hen parties you attend there is never inflatable willies or naked dolls or strippers or penis straws or dildos or games where you go up and touch a guys ass or get a guy to snog you or bla bla bla.

Women are the exact same!!!

As for your class remark, that just shows your actual lack of class

Joking as in the person receiving the 'sl*t' remark is a) aware of it and b) receives it in good humour. If you can't see the difference between calling a good friend a sl*t as a joke and using the word to degrade and dehumanise a woman you had sex with, behind her back, then I don't know what more to tell you. And BTW, I wouldn't even use 'sl*t' as a joke and neither would my friends, but I'm saying some people would. This is not the case with that Whatsapp group. It was meant to demean and humiliate, and you'd have to be pretty dense not to see that.

ShowMeTheCash

GreeBo wrote: »

Rape, at least in the UK, requires penetration with a penis.

Anything else would be sexual assault.

Yeah, I think the only time it can happen is if the male is a minor.
Thus becomes statutory rape.

Lux23

None of us knows what happened in that room apart from those that were there. But what we do know is that at least three of the defendants definitely have seriously disgusting attitudes towards women, and as a proud Irish woman I would be ashamed to see them in an Irish jersey again. I've heard men talk like that; I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it is the wrong message to send to the young boys and girls who look up to people like this.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishrebe

GreeBo wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

I wonder who buys all the novelty willies for hen parties?

Must be for research purposes since women are so much better behaved than men.

You're comparing a novelty willy to 'roasting' a woman, boasting about it on a Whatsapp group, telling everyone she has a loose vagina, is a sl*t...........? Seriously? Good God.

Sidebaro

c.p.w.g.w wrote:

Never said it...But I bare some responsibility because I was so drunk and thus made bad uncharacteristic decisions. The people who jumped me are still responsible.

But if you could just as easily have been jumped when sober then why is your intoxication a factor at all? That's my question.

Mr.H

Blud wrote: »

Evidence does not lead to a not guilty verdict. There is a presumption from the start that they are not guilty, the prosecution attempt to produvecevidence that they are guilty.

The prosecution failed to produvecevidence that they are guilty, so they were found not to be guilty.

No evidence was produced to show that they were not guilty.

Nobody proved they were not guilty.

Your outlook on this is overly simplistic and massively incorrect.

it is simplistic.

Are they innocent?

Why are they innocent?

What led the jury to say they are not guilty?

So they are innocent because the jury thought the evidence and statements did not prove guilt. Therefore it helped to make them innocent again.

snotboogie

irishrebe wrote: »

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

Well this girl was a poshy so its not just scumbags

You never been on a hen night? Your in a dream world

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking[\b]) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

That's the point isn't it. You will know when your friends are joking because you have years of context to back it up. You won't have this context when looking at a text exchange between people you have never met.

GreeBo

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Yeah, I think the only time it can happen is if the male is a minor.
Thus becomes statutory rape.

Unless the minor is assaulted by another man with a penis, it would still "only" be sexual assault.

Rape requires a penis on the rapist.