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

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

pretty dense eh?

So you ignore the rest of my post yea?

Im not dehumanising anyone and I gave you examples of how women do it as much as men.

But then again I must be dense?

Classy

Lux23

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I don't know that I would be offended by someone saying I was a snug fit or that I had big boobs. Partner says it all the time. Now I would be offended if he said I was somewhat loose and that there were more flutes in the bedroom that the 12th of July.

GreeBo

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

Innocent again?

They were always innocent, just as everyone is always innocent, unless guilt is proven.

Seriously, this is not really that complicated.

iamwhoiam

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

I agree . I don't know what exactly happened but the men behaved disgracefully and I too would not be happy to see any of them wear an Irish jersey again. This behaviour must be seen to be wrong and the message to out that irrespective of not guilty of rape their behaviour was disgusting

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.

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

How do you demean and humiliate someone who isnt aware or privy to a private conversation exactly?

whisky_galore

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.

Ah sure they can make-and-do placards with their Crayolas, they'll get a nice bit of sun and have a latte and a natter afterwards.

El Weirdo

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) ...

irishrebe

GreeBo wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

How do you demean and humiliate someone who isnt aware or privy to a private conversation exactly?

Of course you can. A person doesn't need to be present to be demeaned.

c.p.w.g.w

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

Because they never talk unfiltered around women.

I know many lads who have said worse stuff about sex the night before with some one. Occasionally joking about her maybe sleeping with 2 or 3 of them in the same night. Mostly sports teams admittedly.

But lads aged between 17-25 say some disrespectful stuff about women and sex with them. Look at their watsapp's. They will say it's just banter and nobody is hurts because it private conversation. Most lads grow up and out of it.

RuMan

Not sure how or why it ever got to trial.
Decision to select them again or not should be a purely rugby decision.

Mr.H

GreeBo wrote: »

Innocent again?

They were always innocent, just as everyone is always innocent, unless guilt is proven.

Seriously, this is not really that complicated.

So you agree then.

They are innocent because they where found not guilty?

pjohnson

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

Still carrying those goalposts around.

irishrebe

snotboogie wrote: »

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.

The context is there. Nobody IN the group was being called a sl*t with a loose vagina as a good natured joke, were they?

Benteke

wexie wrote: »

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?

It puts the onus on the legal team for not proven the case and it protects people in cases like this were their is a strong chance they're telling the truth from been called liars and it saves them from getting vilified, A lot of people believe the girl in this case, It just could not be proven, Nobody knows what happened in that house only those who were there, The men in question come out of it looking like scum and their careers are done, It works in Scotland and it protects victims in a lot of cases

C__MC

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

so your argument is that, due to historical issues, forever more the same act perpetrated by a man on a woman, is worse than when perpetrated by a woman on a man?

Do I have that right?

I guess by that logic a black person can call me "cracker" all day long and a Jew can refers to Germans as "Krauts"?

Cant you see how this approach doesnt work at all?
Can a Jew call a black person a "******"? How do you work out which is the more historically subjugated race? Is there an order of merit somewhere you can share?

SAMTALK

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I agree . I don't know what exactly happened but the men behaved disgracefully and I too would not be happy to see any of them wear an Irish jersey again. This behaviour must be seen to be wrong and the message to out that irrespective of not guilty of rape their behaviour was disgusting

But if they were found not guilty and you say irrespective of this their behaviour was disgusting would you have to say that the girls behaviour was also disgusting ?

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

so your argument is that, due to historical issues, forever more the same act perpetrated by a man on a woman, is worse than when perpetrated by a woman on a man?

Do I have that right?

Yup...that's modern day 'equality' at work for ya right there.

GreeBo

Mr.H wrote: »

So you agree then.

They are innocent because they where found not guilty?

Yes.
However this does not mean they were proven innocent, which you keep repeating.

Blud

Mr.H wrote: »

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.

I'm giving up.

I think you understand the point, but I think you have some sort of agenda to declare them as proven to be innocent or proven to be not guilty.

It's either an agenda, or a very poor understanding of the legal system and active pride in that lack of understanding.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

Men are not objectified by women?

So men dont feel like they need to look like all groomed and chisled? or have a 6 pack with amazing abs? They dont feel like they should have big arms?

Movies like magic mike dont objectify men no?

When men get groped we like it yea??

you are a complete sexist

Benteke

C__MC wrote: »

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

Do you think OJ Simpson killed his wife and her boyfriend?

Cunning Stunt

Havnt read this full thread and it has probably been said before but TD Ruth Coppinger strikes me as very hypocritical in complaining in the news interviews about how the media coverage assassinated the womans character, when at the same time her constant stream of social media posts and "i believe her" rallying cries are effectively doing the same thing to the men who were aquitted?

UsBus

C__MC wrote: »

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

Any of these people on protests actually work for living...?? Jees wish I had the time to stroll around the town midweek...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

c.p.w.g.w

Mr.H wrote: »

Men are not objectified by women?

So men dont feel like they need to look like all groomed and chisled? or have a 6 pack with amazing abs? They dont feel like they should have big arms?

Movies like magic mike dont objectify men no?

When men get groped we like it yea??

you are a complete sexist

You can't call a women out on her ****, your'd be labeled a sexist fascist pig

GreeBo

SAMTALK wrote: »

But if they were found not guilty and you say irrespective of this their behaviour was disgusting would you have to say that the girls behaviour was also disgusting ?

Of course not, she is a woman.:rolleyes:

Lux23

C__MC wrote: »

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

No, the world has always been mad as most rapists get away with their crimes. That's what you should be angry at, not the wimmins getting a bit too uppity for ya.

irishrebe

GreeBo wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

so your argument is that, due to historical issues, forever more the same act perpetrated by a man on a woman, is worse than when perpetrated by a woman on a man?

Do I have that right?

I guess by that logic a black person can call me "cracker" all day long and a Jew can refers to Germans as "Krauts"?

Cant you see how this approach doesnt work at all?
Can a Jew call a black person a "******"? How do you work out which is the more historically subjugated race? Is there an order of merit somewhere you can share?

It's not even just historical though, is it? It's 2018 and women are STILL told not to get drunk, not to walk home alone, all these measures so as not to get raped. When women actually have all the same privileges men do, then let's talk about 'double standards' when it comes to graphic sex talk.

HappyAsLarE

Funny thing is, all those #Ibelieveher gobs would be dismissing the charges if they were in the jury and had been educated by the judge on due process within our justice system.

VinLieger

Cunning Stunt wrote: »

Havnt read this full thread and it has probably been said before but TD Ruth Coppinger strikes me as very hypocritical in complaining in the news interviews about how the media coverage assassinated the womans character, when at the same time her constant stream of social media posts and "i believe her" rallying cries are effectively doing the same thing to the men who were aquitted?

Yeah but women can't ever be sexist against men in her world cus reasons.....

C__MC

SAMTALK wrote: »

But if they were found not guilty and you say irrespective of this their behaviour was disgusting would you have to say that the girls behaviour was also disgusting ?

The girls behavior let’s dissect it. Goes to a house party and knew no one. Hung around the NI team in Ollie’s. Didn’t get back to their house party so went to Jackson’s on her own. Text a friend “I’m at paddy Jackson’s lol” shared a kiss with him to. She was looking for something that night clearly. It takes two to tangle.

Lux23

GreeBo wrote: »

How do you demean and humiliate someone who isnt aware or privy to a private conversation exactly?

Oh for f**k sake.

Lux23

C__MC wrote: »

The girls behavior let’s dissect it. Goes to a house party and knew no one. Hung around the NI team in Ollie’s. Didn’t get back to their house party so went to Jackson’s on her own. Text a friend “I’m at paddy Jackson’s lol” shared a kiss with him to. She was looking for something that night clearly. It takes two to tangle.

But in this case, it was four?

c.p.w.g.w

irishrebe wrote: »

It's not even just historical though, is it? It's 2018 and women are STILL told not to get drunk, not to walk home alone, all these measures so as not to get raped. When women actually have all the same privileges men do, then let's talk about 'double standards' when it comes to graphic sex talk.

I would tell me son the same. I have got a few hidings from walking home drunk. People who attacked me are wrong, but I bare some responsibility for getting in such a drunken state and walking home at 2-3 in the morning

RuMan

GreeBo wrote: »

so your argument is that, due to historical issues, forever more the same act perpetrated by a man on a woman, is worse than when perpetrated by a woman on a man?

Do I have that right?

I guess by that logic a black person can call me "cracker" all day long and a Jew can refers to Germans as "Krauts"?

Cant you see how this approach doesnt work at all?
Can a Jew call a black person a "******"? How do you work out which is the more historically subjugated race? Is there an order of merit somewhere you can share?

In the victimhood olympics i think white women are second last. White men are always guilty. However black males would always be innocent if it was a white female. I think lesbian white women come before white straight women but after black males.

Great money in the US in the victimhood gig in fairness hardly surprising people here are trying to cash in.

VinLieger

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Funny thing is, all those #Ibelieveher gobs would be dismissing the charges if they were in the jury and had been educated by the judge on due process within our justice system.

I dont think you understand how narrowminded these idiots are, they are the kind of person who would lie to get on a rape trial jury to try and even the score but ultimately cause a mistrial when their obvious bias was discovered just causing the accuser in the case more pain due to a longer process.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

hahahahahahahaha... jesus I hope you are being wilfully ironic

spurious

C__MC wrote: »

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

Because almost every woman in this country has either been sexually assaulted herself or knows someone who has been.

Think about that.

facehugger99

Lux23 wrote: »

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.

I'd be shocked and disgusted to see either of them in an Irish jersey. In fact I'd burn my jersey and neither attend or watch any more Ireland matches.

Don't think it will ever come to that though.

Regardless of the verdict (most likely correct form a legal standpoint), their behavior and treatment of a drunk teenager was horrific. No way should they be allowed represent our country.

Mr.H

GreeBo wrote: »

Yes.
However this does not mean they were proven innocent, which you keep repeating.

Their innocence was proven as much as it can be. The only way to prove their innocence is if she was lying and she admits or. Or if they prove she lied.

In terms of clearing their name and regaining innocence status which they lost weeks ago, this is the closest they will ever get to having their innocence "proven".

I dislike the idea of people saying they were proven not guilty because it implies the evidence was flawed and that they got away with it.

They didnt get away with it because the evidence didnt point to them raping her. While you may keep repeating yourself and trying to insult me into agreeing with you, i do not. I am saying yellow = 1, and 1= up, so up = yellow. I am using logic which in no way can be disproven. Ha I think there is a like for like metaphor there.

doc_17

Has anyone has their opinion changed by any of the posts they have read on this forum? Genuine question.

irishrebe

Lux23 wrote: »

C__MC wrote: »

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

No, the world has always been mad as most rapists get away with their crimes. That's what you should be angry at, not the wimmins getting a bit too uppity for ya.

You know, I don't even agree with the protest, not at all. The lads were found not guilty, and I don't think anyone should be accusing them of anything now. But the sheer fury of the men on here is something to behold. Women are treated like absolute sh*t for millennia and that was fine. Couldn't vote until relatively recently, couldn't work, still can't choose to abort a pregnancy. A small group of men suffer an injustice in the form of a few people protesting the result of a rape trial for a few hours and men are up in arms and foaming at the mouth about 'feminazis'? And the woman are the hysterical ones?

VinLieger

spurious wrote: »

Because almost every woman in this country has either been sexually assaulted herself or knows someone who has been.

Think about that.

And holding protests to shout about 4 men who were acquitted of rape but are still rapists in their eyes helps how?

ShowMeTheCash

Mr.H wrote: »

So you agree then.

They are innocent because they where found not guilty?

#

I think you know where you went wrong with this argument but you have dug in too deep and do not want to admit you have made yourself look silly.

Presumed innocent yes and as it should be
Proven to be innocent? No.

Does the case prove they did not rape her? Noooooooooo Only you thinks this.
The presumption is innocent, the role of the court is to find them guilty or not guilty.
A not guilty verdict is not "proof" of innocents. Their innocents never had to be proven in the first place.

I will say it again, if they actually had to prove their innocents they would be in jail right now as would 99% of rape accusations.

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

It's not even just historical though, is it? It's 2018 and women are STILL told not to get drunk, not to walk home alone, all these measures so as not to get raped. When women actually have all the same privileges men do, then let's talk about 'double standards' when it comes to graphic sex talk.

In your previous post your point was that men deflect about abuse agianst women with the "but women grope too" argument.
Now your argument is that you are not going to talk about what women do wrong because they dont have all the privileges that men do.

You dont see any contradiction there at all?

iamwhoiam

GreeBo wrote: »

Of course not, she is a woman.:rolleyes:

How do you know how I would have answered that post ? I have an opinion on the girls behaviour but I am not happy to discuss it right now on a public forum to be honest . But don't presume to know what I think

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

Men are not objectified by women?

So men dont feel like they need to look like all groomed and chisled? or have a 6 pack with amazing abs? They dont feel like they should have big arms?

Movies like magic mike dont objectify men no?

When men get groped we like it yea??

you are a complete sexist

No, not as their main purpose in life, no. And I didn't say men liked being groped. Learn to read.

Wibbs

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

Feminist "history", sorry Herstory in action. As usual it's only part of the story and tremendously simplistic. And if you think men have never been objects for women maybe have another read of the Bronte type narratives where the women are obsessed with the size of their potential suitors wallets and their social position. That's a narrative that's as old as the hills. Then again if it's not women are always victims it doesn't exist.

Lux23 wrote: »

there were more flutes in the bedroom that the 12th of July.

never heard that one before L.

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

"male privilege" eh? Here we go... Going by the averages as a man we'll die younger than women, die way more by our own hand, are more likely to be homeless, are more likely to be unemployed, are more likely to be lower paid before kids come along, are more likely to be alcoholics, less likely to have a social safety net and support that women often take for granted and a long list on top. Jaysus we must be doing this privilege thing wrong.

Though I have to say that you apparently a feminist have the monumental brass neck to use the term "victim status" applied to men with zero sense of irony is truly hilarious :pac: and demonstrates your completely blinkered third hand feminist worldview.