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

Parklife1988

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

Fann Linn

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Anyone following the case should not have been surprised in the slightest. It was fairly obvious weeks ago that the verdict was heading the way it did.

Too many inconsistencies and not enough evidence.

Thats exactly what ex judge Barry White said last night on tv3.
Spot on.

Tsipras

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape?  And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

Hope being falsely accused never happens to your son / brother /father

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote:

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

And I hope your brother/father/son isn't treated like a criminal when found not guilty.

For funk sake

Parklife1988

Worth a read. Written by a real and good man.

On the Belfast rape trial: I read and listened to the print and broadcast media reports daily to try and be as informed as possible. No-one other than those on the jury can know the interpretations and rationale underpinning acquittals and/or not guilty verdicts. What we can all know as fact though, are the messages these men sent to each other, the language they used, the attitude they displayed, the behaviour they described. Toward this woman. Toward women in general. These are not open to debate, these are fact, admitted by the defendants in court. All of it was outrageous. All of it was disgraceful. All of it was absolutely, inarguably unacceptable. It was not immaturity, or drunkenness, or ‘the lads’. It was abuse. It was misogyny. It was the inverse of being a man.

As a father, as a brother, as a son, most simply as a man, I object. I refuse. I condemn. You may have lost a decision in court today young woman, but you have shown these men to the world. Watching a 2017 documentary on Dr Dre & Jimmy Iovine, Dre described his assault on Dee Barnes in 1991 as ‘a major blemish on who I am as a man’. Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding, Blaine McIlroy, Rory Harrison, you are blemished, you are stained. How you treated this woman will follow you, as it should. You owe her, her family, your family, and yourselves, the work that will be needed to fade this stain. You will never be rid of it, but you could, if you have the courage to, lessen it. Lessen it in yourselves, lessen it in other men. It will take you a lifetime. As it should.

To women; our family, our friends, or strangers… we are listening. We will be better. We will stand up and speak out. We will see you, and hear you, and work to protect you when other men threaten you. Keep pushing us, keep waking us. We love you, as women, as people. We can often be weak, and afraid, but we are working to be stronger, to be your equal.

With love.

Arne_Saknussem

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not saying only women can be raped, I'm saying that only men can commit rape.

As far as i understand it women can commit rape, but only to other women.

A woman cannot rape a man under our current laws(statutory rape not included), the most serious crime she can commit to a man is aggravated sexual assault.


4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.


Open to correction.

hatrickpatrick

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

In any civilised country, due process and the principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" apply. These people were not proven guilty, ergo they are innocent. It's that simple. Any deviation from this threatens every democratic freedom our society is built upon.

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote:

Worth a read. Written by someone who agrees with me.

Fyp

ThinkProgress

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those attacking GreenBo, incredibly depressingly it is actually correct that rape is defined as penetration without consent, not intercourse without consent. So in most Western legal systems, the definition of rape physically cannot extend to a woman having sex with a man who did not consent.

Sounds like a perfectly logical definition to me!

Ipso

How do you distinguish between real and not real?

Parklife1988

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In any civilised country, due process and the principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" apply. These people were not proven guilty, ergo they are innocent. It's that simple. Any deviation from this threatens every democratic freedom our society is built upon.

And that society and everything it stands for is helped by people calling the woman involved a slut and calling for her to be named and the endless amount of people pretty much supporting this type of incident and outcome?
I hardly think so

shesty

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

All you can do is go on the evidence presented and if I was on the jury and going on what I heard and read from the trial I would have reached the same verdict as the jury.

I think these fellas let themselves down badly and they come out of it looking like juvenile morons. And while we're at it, a bunch of ass-holes. But at the same time you cannot lock them up for that.

It's a tad scary the amount of people saying they should have been locked up for a crime they've been found not guilty of.

Why there exists an appetite for finding people guilty without sufficient evidence probably says a lot more about the people who are calling for it, or complaining about the verdict.

Maybe its the fact they're wealthy or just the understandable disdain for their extremely poor behaviour but whether anyone likes it or not there really wasn't a whole lot of evidence there to send them to prison and the jury took a few hours to reach a verdict on a case that went on for months, which says a lot about the lack of evidence.

Ultimately people attacking the verdict are doing so for their own reasons, and not for the evidence (or lack of) presented during the trial.
The jury could only go on evidence and therefore they called it correctly imo.

I agree.My gut felt that if they had been found guilty, it would simply have been because she called "rape" and that in itself would have been a backward step too.

As for the alcohol thing....don't get me started.Surely only in Ireland is alcohol considered some sort of defence for your actions....

There were no winners here.None.Something happened for sure, something she, at some point, stopped being ok with....she thinks but can't remember all that well.It is quite literally her word against theirs, and there is no good way to decide that.

Ipso

Parklife1988 wrote: »

And that society and everything it stands for is helped by people calling the woman involved a slut and calling for her to be named and the endless amount of people pretty much supporting this type of incident and outcome?
I hardly think so

Support what kind of incident.

rafatoni

Anyone tell me what these protests are supposed to achieve?

Pretty cringeworthy stuff

hatrickpatrick

Parklife1988 wrote: »

And that society and everything it stands for is helped by people calling the woman involved a slut and calling for her to be named and the endless amount of people pretty much supporting this type of incident and outcome?
I hardly think so

The people attacking the victim are absolute, complete, total and utter scumbags. That doesn't change the fact that a court has acquitted the accused, which means that they are innocent men. "This type of incident" meaning what, exactly?

EDIT: Also, those calling for her to be named are probably doing so because the accused, innocent men involved were also named and will in all probability have their careers completely destroyed on the basis of an allegation.

Personally, I don't think she should be named - but the defendants shouldn't have been named either.

evolving_doors

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

Do you think she consented to it at the time?

Or

Can you say that she didn't consent beyond any reasonable doubt?

Leave the mother's sisters daughters fathers brothers sons emotive stuff out of it.
Nobody wanted to be taken to court whatever gender or relation.

Nermal

Parklife1988 wrote: »

What we can all know as fact though, are the messages these men sent to each other, the language they used, the attitude they displayed, the behaviour they described. Toward this woman. Toward women in general. These are not open to debate, these are fact, admitted by the defendants in court. All of it was outrageous. All of it was disgraceful. All of it was absolutely, inarguably unacceptable. It was not immaturity, or drunkenness, or ‘the lads’. It was abuse. It was misogyny.

The hyperbole, it's magnificent. Get a grip.

Their attitude is common in famous men, acting like it's beyond the pale or a big surprise is just ridiculous preciousness. It's an attitude born of having women throw themselves at you since you were a teenager.

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.

Shocking that we should trust in the judgment of our legal system.

I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

As opposed to ignoring the lack of evidence, the inconsistencies of the primary witness, and simply assuming they're guilty of rape. Ahh, yes, that is such a sign of empathy and understanding.

Ohh... I get it. Empathy and understanding are to be assigned to women but not men. Right. Nah. I'll stick with equality, and the burden of proving guilt.

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

Actually, no, I doubt it. I'd be interested in them arresting and punishing the person/people responsible for the rape... although, I'd be lucky since my mother, and sister, are very unlikely to be going off with a group of male strangers in highly dubious circumstances, and initiating anything sexual. They have more self-respect than that.

hatrickpatrick

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

Again, hope what doesn't happen to them? The court has ruled that what happened in this case is not rape. Obviously one would hope that bitterly regretted sexual encounters wouldn't happen to their relatives, or indeed to anyone, but it's probably happened to all of us here and it doesn't change the fact that these four individuals should not face any more 'consequences' for something which a court has ruled that they didn't actually do.

ford2600

Other than hearing all the evidence the jury had one other huge advantage over the public like me reading the daily sensationalised bits; they got to see and weigh up all the witnesses.

In every walk of life, subconsciously and consciously we put huge weight in body language especially when trying to decide if the person we don't know is telling the truth; buying a car, dating etc etc.


On the basis of the lady's evidence who entered the room in middle of the alleged crime (especially given as she was sober) I'm not sure the Crown Prosecution was wise to bring case at all.

Courts all across the land put huge weight in independent eye witness accounts. It appears the jury may have here also but they also could have other reasons we don't know about

bottlebrush

two of them were charged with rape. there was insufficient evidence to convict them of rape beyond reasonable doubt. they were certainly guilty of disrespectful behaviour with the girl but that was not the charge. the charge was rape. that's how the courts system works. the numbers protesting today only indicates to me how many people who don't seem to understand how the scales of justice work.

joe40

Overall I accept the juries decision, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty must apply in all criminal cases. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence.
But I keep coming back ro why would the woman put herself through this if she did not feel violated and abused. Why would the police and crown prosecution take the case unless they were sure in their minds.
The woman would have to be a monster to send men to jail for years to simply save embarrassment at been caught in a threesome. I honestly believe that she believed she was raped.
However this has to be proven beyond doubt and we have to accept the decision of the jury.

iamwhoiam

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In any civilised country, due process and the principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" apply. These people were not proven guilty, ergo they are innocent. It's that simple. Any deviation from this threatens every democratic freedom our society is built upon.

Exactly . Those men behaved appallingly , their treatment of a woman was disgusting and if any of them were my son I would be horrified . But at this moment in time that is what they are guilty of , they were found innocent of rape and we all must accept that fact right now . Whether I agree with it or not its simply how it is

Unknown Soldier

I blame twitter and that type of sh1te.

People have a voice.

A lot of people are just stupid.

The math isn't that hard.

I pity all those involved, they have lives to live. I'd say the legal teams are happy though.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Keep pushing us, keep waking us. We love you, as women, as people. We can often be weak, and afraid, but we are working to be stronger, to be your equal.

With love.

The patronising attitude presented here is beyond laughable. Women of the world, we're working to be your equal?! Seriously?

I'm a man and I already view women as my equal. We are all people. We ought to all strive to treat each other with respect, regardless of gender, age, or any other potentially divisive factor.

The above just screams of guilt over being a man, and I for one do not subscribe to that.

Wegian

rafatoni wrote: »

Anyone tell me what these protests are supposed to achieve?

Pretty cringeworthy stuff

Reminiscent of the rallies in the US when the latest election didn't provide the result it was supposed to by those who knew better

Granted...the behaviour of the gentlemen in question if the messages are to be the primary indicator was pretty poor.

NinetyTwoTeam

bottlebrush wrote: »

two of them were charged with rape. there was insufficient evidence to convict them of rape beyond reasonable doubt. they were certainly guilty of disrespectful behaviour with the girl but that was not the charge. the charge was rape. that's how the courts system works. the numbers protesting today only indicates to me how many people who don't seem to understand how the scales of justice work.

No, they understand how it works and are angry because it is unfair and nothing like justice whatsoever. if all the evidence from this incident can't prove rape, how the hell CAN you prove it? and rape is already vastly underreported, this will only make it less likely for women to report.

if you think everyone found not guilty in a court of law has definitely been innocent, and that everyone found guilty is guilty, you're very, very ignorant of how messed up the legal system is.

to hear people just saying, 'welp, found not guilty so they're not guilty' is just laughable. OJ Simpson, anyone?

Parklife1988

The rallies today were in support of all victims of rape.inspired by but not about this one case.

Statistically each one of us know someone who has been raped. And has never said anything. Given the numbers in this thread, there’s a fair chance a few rapists are posting.

Again, hope it never happens to your own.

One_Of_Shanks

Parklife1988 wrote: »

The rallies today were in support of all victims of rape.inspired by but not about this one case. .

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/paddy-jackson-rape-trial-protest-14471189

The event organisers said: "The feminist movement is calling a rally in response to the impact of the recent rape trial in Belfast.

"This event is for those who cannot make the rally at Belfast High Court. Brings signs and placards to show your support.

"There is a lot of anger and upset among women who have observed the treatment of the victim in this case and found it harrowing and re-traumatising."

Parklife1988

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

The patronising attitude presented here is beyond laughable. Women of the world, we're working to be your equal?! Seriously?

I'm a man and I already view women as my equal. We are all people. We ought to all strive to treat each other with respect, regardless of gender, age, or any other potentially divisive factor.

The above just screams of guilt over being a man, and I for one do not subscribe to that.

Good for you. I’m the same.
Look at the messages the lads sent in that WhatsApp group. They’re dragging us down and making us all look bad.
That’s the part everyone defending these lads seem to be missing.
That there’s people even defending these lads, after seeing this kind of evidence is itself disgusting.

Liam O

joe40 wrote: »

Overall I accept the juries decision, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty must apply in all criminal cases. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence.
But I keep coming back ro why would the woman put herself through this if she did not feel violated and abused. Why would the police and crown prosecution take the case unless they were sure in their minds.
The woman would have to be a monster to send men to jail for years to simply save embarrassment at been caught in a threesome. I honestly believe that she believed she was raped.
However this has to be proven beyond doubt and we have to accept the decision of the jury.

It's simple. She believes that she was violated and abused. The court has decided that it was not rape. If there was a lesser charge brought (I'm unaware of if there is lesser charges like sodomy in the US in the UK) then it may have been a different story. The behaviour of the lads is a bit sickening but obscene sex stories are hardly new with the rich and famous.

Ultimately it is probably somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately/fortunately you cannot convict someone on a grey area though...

Ipso

Parklife1988 wrote: »

The rallies today were in support of all victims of rape.inspired by but not about this one case.

Statistically each one of us know someone who has been raped. And has never said anything. Given the numbers in this thread, there’s a fair chance a few rapists are posting.

Again, hope it never happens to your own.

The hell it is. This kind of feminism which can be best described as twitter feminism is just another form of tribalism.
They will always be on the right side, anyone who disagrees with them is the "other" and therefore must also agree with other horrible things they are against.
There is no grey area, no nuance. Just they are always right.
As for the#Ibelieveher, give me a break that's pure hubris. The justice system does not revolve around their opinion, thankfully.

Ipso

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Good for you. I’m the same.
Look at the messages the lads sent in that WhatsApp group. They’re dragging us down and making us all look bad.
That’s the part everyone defending these lads seem to be missing.
That there’s people even defending these lads, after seeing this kind of evidence is itself disgusting.

Stop this nonsense, that kind of behavior is not limited to men.

iamwhoiam

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Good for you. I’m the same.
Look at the messages the lads sent in that WhatsApp group. They’re dragging us down and making us all look bad.
That’s the part everyone defending these lads seem to be missing.
That there’s people even defending these lads, after seeing this kind of evidence is itself disgusting.

Genuine question but why would the behaviour of others make you look bad ? Many women behave badly but it doesn't reflect badly on a whole gender ?
The men behaved disgracefully but you did not

stateofflux

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Good for you. I’m the same.
Look at the messages the lads sent in that WhatsApp group. They’re dragging us down and making us all look bad.
That’s the part everyone defending these lads seem to be missing.
That there’s people even defending these lads, after seeing this kind of evidence is itself disgusting.

this is the thinking i don't get. that same gender = collective responsibility / collective reputation.

its bollox, i am an individual. my gender is incidental. my actions are my responsibility and mine alone.

Strazdas

joe40 wrote: »

Overall I accept the juries decision, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty must apply in all criminal cases. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence.
But I keep coming back ro why would the woman put herself through this if she did not feel violated and abused. Why would the police and crown prosecution take the case unless they were sure in their minds.
The woman would have to be a monster to send men to jail for years to simply save embarrassment at been caught in a threesome. I honestly believe that she believed she was raped.
However this has to be proven beyond doubt and we have to accept the decision of the jury.

She also said in one of her texts to the Rory guy "Your friends are not very nice people", so she certainly seems to have viewed the evening or the last part of the evening as an unpleasant experience.

RuMan

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/paddy-jackson-rape-trial-protest-14471189

The event organisers said: "The feminist movement is calling a rally in response to the impact of the recent rape trial in Belfast.

"This event is for those who cannot make the rally at Belfast High Court. Brings signs and placards to show your support.

"There is a lot of anger and upset among women who have observed the treatment of the victim in this case and found it harrowing and re-traumatising."

Consensual sex? By all means protest but linking it to this case undermines credibility

humberklog

Liam O wrote: »

If there was a lesser charge brought (I'm unaware of if there is lesser charges like sodomy in the US in the UK) then it may have been a different story.

Huh?

Parklife1988

Ipso wrote: »

The hell it is. This kind of feminism which can be best described as twitter feminism is just another form of tribalism.
They will always be on the right side, anyone who disagrees with them is the "other" and therefore must also agree with other horrible things they are against.
There is no grey area, no nuance. Just they are always right.
As for the#Ibelieveher, give me a break that's pure hubris. The justice system does not revolve around their opinion, thankfully.

Why does that upset you? Every single element of our society is patriarchal. All of it. What’s the outcome? You’re afraid they’ll come and not let you be ‘a man’?

How would that happen exactly?

Bewildering insecure nonsense and fragility from lads that just adds up to ‘ me man. Me meant to be on top! Clean kitchen woman!’


That’s the lame argument from men. Women’s is far more nuanced and developed.

oneilla

Bambi wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, I'm assuming all the ibelieveher hash taggers are happy that they implicitly dont believe the female witness? Maybe ibelieveherbutnother would be more accurate

Dara Florence was in the room for "less than a minute". The prosecuting QC asked her if there were any signs of consent to which she replied no.

I think her participation in all this is something of a red herring since people are working under the assumption that victims of rape fight back or actively struggle rather than wait for the ordeal to be over.

The moaning she heard outside the room stopped when she opened the door.

"She added there was also nothing to indicate “positive consent” during the brief period she witnessed the sexual activity."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-week-three-evidence-focused-on-before-and-after-1.3395241?mode=amp

paw patrol

joe40 wrote: »

Overall I accept the juries decision, and the principle of innocent until proven guilty must apply in all criminal cases. The onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt, not the defence to prove innocence.
But I keep coming back ro why would the woman put herself through this if she did not feel violated and abused. Why would the police and crown prosecution take the case unless they were sure in their minds.
The woman would have to be a monster to send men to jail for years to simply save embarrassment at been caught in a threesome. I honestly believe that she believed she was raped.
However this has to be proven beyond doubt and we have to accept the decision of the jury.

knock yourself out!!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5775371/c

I just know that I couldn't convict based on the evidence of an eye witness who wasn't known to either party. I can't believe it went to trial given that evidence alone.

Abstract
The list of motives by Kanin (1994) is the most cited list of motives to file a false allegation of rape. Kanin posited that complainants file a false allegation out of revenge, to produce an alibi or to get sympathy. A new list of motives is proposed in which gain is the predominant factor. In the proposed list, complainants file a false allegation out of material gain, emotional gain, or a disturbed mental state. The list can be subdivided into eight different categories: material gain, alibi, revenge, sympathy, attention, a disturbed mental state, relabeling, or regret. To test the validity of the list, a sample of 57 proven false allegations were studied at and provided by the National Unit of the Dutch National Police (NU). The complete files were studied to ensure correct classification by the NU and to identify the motives of the complainants. The results support the overall validity of the list. Complainants were primarily motivated by emotional gain. Most false allegations were used to cover up other behavior such as adultery or skipping school. Some complainants, however, reported more than one motive. A large proportion, 20% of complainants, said that they did not know why they filed a false allegation. The results confirm the complexity of motivations for filing false allegations and the difficulties associated with archival studies. In conclusion, the list of Kanin is, based on the current results, valid but insufficient to explain all the different motives of complainants to file a false allegation.

Keywords: Rape, False allegations, Police records, Motives of complainants

markodaly

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Worth a read. Written by a real and good man.

On the Belfast rape trial: I read and listened to the print and broadcast media reports daily to try and be as informed as possible. No-one other than those on the jury can know the interpretations and rationale underpinning acquittals and/or not guilty verdicts. What we can all know as fact though, are the messages these men sent to each other, the language they used, the attitude they displayed, the behaviour they described. Toward this woman. Toward women in general. These are not open to debate, these are fact, admitted by the defendants in court. All of it was outrageous. All of it was disgraceful. All of it was absolutely, inarguably unacceptable. It was not immaturity, or drunkenness, or ‘the lads’. It was abuse. It was misogyny. It was the inverse of being a man.

As a father, as a brother, as a son, most simply as a man, I object. I refuse. I condemn. You may have lost a decision in court today young woman, but you have shown these men to the world. Watching a 2017 documentary on Dr Dre & Jimmy Iovine, Dre described his assault on Dee Barnes in 1991 as ‘a major blemish on who I am as a man’. Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding, Blaine McIlroy, Rory Harrison, you are blemished, you are stained. How you treated this woman will follow you, as it should. You owe her, her family, your family, and yourselves, the work that will be needed to fade this stain. You will never be rid of it, but you could, if you have the courage to, lessen it. Lessen it in yourselves, lessen it in other men. It will take you a lifetime. As it should.

To women; our family, our friends, or strangers… we are listening. We will be better. We will stand up and speak out. We will see you, and hear you, and work to protect you when other men threaten you. Keep pushing us, keep waking us. We love you, as women, as people. We can often be weak, and afraid, but we are working to be stronger, to be your equal.

With love.

Sounds like a religious sermon to be honest.

Which begs the question, why did the woman in question agree to the threesome? Any role in her own situation? No? All the mens fault I presume?

So, has womens sexual liberation failed, where woman are free to screw whomever and however they wish? If so, why are men then blamed when these situation arise?

Having your cake and eating it.

The feminists today are turning old school sexual conservatives. We are going back to the victorian times of sex!

bottlebrush

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

No, they understand how it works and are angry because it is unfair and nothing like justice whatsoever. if all the evidence from this incident can't prove rape, how the hell CAN you prove it? and rape is already vastly underreported, this will only make it less likely for women to report.

if you think everyone found not guilty in a court of law has definitely been innocent, and that everyone found guilty is guilty, you're very, very ignorant of how messed up the legal system is.

to hear people just saying, 'welp, found not guilty so they're not guilty' is just laughable. OJ Simpson, anyone?

what changes would you propose to the present system to make it less messed up?

RuMan

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Worth a read. Written by a real and good man.

On the Belfast rape trial: I read and listened to the print and broadcast media reports daily to try and be as informed as possible. No-one other than those on the jury can know the interpretations and rationale underpinning acquittals and/or not guilty verdicts. What we can all know as fact though, are the messages these men sent to each other, the language they used, the attitude they displayed, the behaviour they described. Toward this woman. Toward women in general. These are not open to debate, these are fact, admitted by the defendants in court. All of it was outrageous. All of it was disgraceful. All of it was absolutely, inarguably unacceptable. It was not immaturity, or drunkenness, or ‘the lads’. It was abuse. It was misogyny. It was the inverse of being a man.

As a father, as a brother, as a son, most simply as a man, I object. I refuse. I condemn. You may have lost a decision in court today young woman, but you have shown these men to the world. Watching a 2017 documentary on Dr Dre & Jimmy Iovine, Dre described his assault on Dee Barnes in 1991 as ‘a major blemish on who I am as a man’. Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding, Blaine McIlroy, Rory Harrison, you are blemished, you are stained. How you treated this woman will follow you, as it should. You owe her, her family, your family, and yourselves, the work that will be needed to fade this stain. You will never be rid of it, but you could, if you have the courage to, lessen it. Lessen it in yourselves, lessen it in other men. It will take you a lifetime. As it should.

To women; our family, our friends, or strangers… we are listening. We will be better. We will stand up and speak out. We will see you, and hear you, and work to protect you when other men threaten you. Keep pushing us, keep waking us. We love you, as women, as people. We can often be weak, and afraid, but we are working to be stronger, to be your equal.

With love.

Sorry it was consensual sex, these men committed no crime. Virtue signalling here.
The police and courts have questions to answer for even bringing it to court.

paw patrol

oneilla wrote: »

Dara Florence was in the room for "less than a minute". The prosecuting QC asked her if there were any signs of consent to which she replied no.

I think her participation in all this is something of a red herring since people are working under the assumption that victims of rape fight back or actively struggle rather than wait for the ordeal to be over.

The moaning she heard outside the room stopped when she opened the door.

"She added there was also nothing to indicate “positive consent” during the brief period she witnessed the sexual activity."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-week-three-evidence-focused-on-before-and-after-1.3395241?mode=amp

what you are sawing is that it is possible to witness a rape and not realise it's a rape...I find that a bit far fetched because beyond the accusation of rape itself there was no accusation of threatening behaviour or violence to coerce the girl.
Plus DC walked in unannounced....so the scene couldn't have been contrived.

The was an eye witness to an event. That is good enough for me assuming no evidence that the witness isn't being truthful

Guy:Incognito

khaldrogo wrote: »

Every Sunday morning there are lads What's App groups all over the world saying similar stuff to each other that these lads said. Is it right? No. Is it a reason to find someone guilty of rape? No.

And there are womens WhatsApp groups doing the very same.

markodaly

Parklife1988 wrote: »

The rallies today were in support of all victims of rape.inspired by but not about this one case.

Parklife1988

markodaly wrote: »

Sounds like a religious sermon to be honest.

Which begs the question, why did the woman in question agree to the threesome? Any role in her own situation? No? All the mens fault I presume?

So, has womens sexual liberation failed, where woman are free to screw whomever and however they wish? If so, why are men then blamed when these situation arise?

Having your cake and eating it.

The feminists today are turning old school sexual conservatives. We are going back to the victorian times of sex!

English???
Can’t tell if you’re makihg a point or celebrating. Maybe read over your post again.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Good for you. I’m the same.
Look at the messages the lads sent in that WhatsApp group. They’re dragging us down and making us all look bad.
That’s the part everyone defending these lads seem to be missing.
That there’s people even defending these lads, after seeing this kind of evidence is itself disgusting.

Dragging us down? Making us look bad? If anyone is deluded enough to base their opinion of ALL men on some private messages sent between some men in a WhatsApp group, then their ability to form an informed opinion is highly questionable.

Almost nobody is defending the messages the guys sent. I can't speak for those who do, nor do I agree with them. I feel the lads made themselves look like total pricks in front of the whole world. Being a total prick *in this manner* isn't a crime though.

What is evident is the 'with us or against us' mob mentality rampant on twitter since. "Your silence is deafening" is a common one. Anyone saying anything other than 'I believe her' is being labelled a rape apologist, a misogynist and a scumbag. Those who do agree with the verdict are being told by the mob that they are lesser human beings because of an opinion they hold. And before someone makes a comparison, they do not hold a view which is illegal, such as racism or sexism. This view is one which was upheld in a court of law. They are entitled to their opinion without being denigrated.

A 'with us or against us' mentality will only ever divide and the last thing that society needs right now is an even bigger wedge between men and women.

Zebra3

bottlebrush wrote: »

two of them were charged with rape. there was insufficient evidence to convict them of rape beyond reasonable doubt. they were certainly guilty of disrespectful behaviour with the girl but that was not the charge. the charge was rape. that's how the courts system works. the numbers protesting today only indicates to me how many people who don't seem to understand how the scales of justice work.

They weren’t guilty of anything.