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

spookwoman

professore wrote: »

Jackson followed, she said, and grabbed her trousers, pulling them down to her knees. She said she froze as Jackson pushed her down on the bed and with her tight trousers caught at her knees, she couldn’t move. “I was face down on the bed and he was having sex with me.”

Jackson knew she did not want it to happen “but he kept going”, she said.

Then the door opened and Olding walked in. “My heart just sank. I knew what was going to happen. I looked Patrick Jackson straight in the eyes and said ‘please no, not him as well’.”


How did she look him in the eye if she was face down on the bed?

She immediately got off the bed and grabbed her clothes. She put her trousers on and her underpants in her pocket. She said McIlroy said to her: “You f***ed the other guys, why won’t you f**k me?”

When did her tight trousers magically disappear? How did her underpants get off over her tight trousers?

She told McIlroy: “How many times does it take for a girl to say no for it to sink in?”

Doesn't sound like something someone paralysed by fear would say.

I was talking about dora not being able to look at the victim in the eyes because she turned her head away.

Yer Da sells Avon

Laois_Man wrote: »

Jackson doesn't come out of it as bad as a couple of others.

He doesn't say a lot in the texts, full-stop. You could read all sorts of things into that - including him simply not being much of a texter. One of his messages (immediately prior to his three failed attempts to call Olding) wasn't retrievable.

Lucy8080

C__MC wrote: »

The woman didn’t initially mention Dara Florence to police, really really strange.

Dara Florence (sober) was invited to join in. She declined.

It makes one wonder about the possible, sudden, coming to consciousness, of a lady in one position realising another lady says "no,Thanks" to the same offer.

How do you save your reputation in such circumstances?

Ardillaun

I sampled some of the pages on this thread and was pleasantly surprised at the good sense shown - not nearly as much ranting as I'd expected. IMO it was the correct verdict but a very sorry tale nonetheless.

First I've heard of it. How does thread have so many posts in 2 days?

Muahahaha

Ardillaun wrote: »

I sampled some of the pages on this thread and was pleasantly surprised at the good sense shown - not nearly as much ranting as I'd expected. IMO it was the correct verdict but a very sorry tale nonetheless.

Well dont go over to Twitter whatever you do, it is carnage over there with one group claiming the girl is a liar and the other group throwing the jurys decision out the window.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinzeugen wrote: »

I would be surprised if they play for Ulster again but the IRFU needs to think carefully about this.

At the end of the day, the were found not guilty (innocent) of the crime, but the Snapchat could kill international careers.

Eh, no.... not the same thing. While I accept the verdict, it's not the same as being innocent. Scottish law has a "not proven" option for this very reason.

lukesmom wrote: »

Why should they leave? They have done nothing wrong. Yes the texts were unfortunate, but they were private texts between friends. There is no way that they should be shipped off the Exeter to play all because of some texts and because they engaged in a threesome. If the witness hadn't of caught them all in the act I don't suppose we would all be talking about it now. Its really unfair that their lives have been ruined like this. They should be kept on their team to show a message to people that you cannot falsely accuse somebody of rape and get anything out of it.

"Unfortunate" is a little bit of an understatement. There have been plenty of famous people who have lost respect, status, jobs and large sponsorship deals because they got caught out doing or saying something insensitvie or downright vile.

The problem when is that when you're famous - especially for something that involves representing your country - you're expected to be upstanding and ethical in behaviour and presentation at all times. Even when not "on duty". These guys were far from it and any organisation that they represent has the right to drop them from any endorsement duties

At the end of the day you know as well as I do: what people see these guys are endorsing isn't just the product or a rugby shirt.

Strazdas

Lucy8080 wrote: »

Dara Florence (sober) was invited to join in. She declined.

It makes one wonder about the possible, sudden, coming to consciousness, of a lady in one position realising another lady says "no,Thanks" to the same offer.

How do you save your reputation in such circumstances?

Very easy to say 'no' when you're standing in the bedroom doorway and fully clothed and it's the simplest thing to close the door and return downstairs. Also, didn't Dara say her friend was standing right behind her outside the bedroom at this moment? She was hardly going to join in given that fact.

The complainant on the other hand was half naked on a bed in the middle of a sexual act when the first of the other two eejits arrived in the room completely uninvited looking for sex. She may have felt somewhat pressurised in that scenario.

Muahahaha

Interesting news on the front page of the Irish Times. One of the jurors posted comments on www.broadsheet.ie outlining the jurys decision to acquit. The juror has now been referred to the Attorney General in NI and may face prosecution.

Lucy8080

Strazdas wrote: »

Very easy to say 'no' when you're standing in the bedroom doorway and fully clothed and it's the simplest thing to close the door and return downstairs. Also, didn't Dara say her friend was standing right behind her outside the bedroom at this moment? She was hardly going to join in given that fact.

The complainant on the other hand was half naked on a bed in the middle of a sexual act when the first of the other two eejits arrived in the room completely uninvited looking for sex. She may have felt somewhat pressurised in that scenario.

I've read an earlier post here where Dara described Olding as laying prone (think about that) and the complainant with her behind in an upward position towards Jackson.

The crux of the matter here is that an invitation was offered to a young sober lady and she declined. No demand was made. The sober lady(the only indepentant eye-witness) also said it didn't look like a rape to her.She also left the room at her own descretion.

It doesn't read like an account of people under duress.

RabbleRouser2k

Strazdas wrote: »

Very easy to say 'no' when you're standing in the bedroom doorway and fully clothed and it's the simplest thing to close the door and return downstairs. Also, didn't Dara say her friend was standing right behind her outside the bedroom at this moment? She was hardly going to join in given that fact.

The complainant on the other hand was half naked on a bed in the middle of a sexual act when the first of the other two eejits arrived in the room completely uninvited looking for sex. She may have felt somewhat pressurised in that scenario.

I don't understand this comment-she wasn't going to 'join in' cos her friend was there? Uh, no, maybe she simply did not want to have sex with a total stranger-which they apparently were, to her. People have choices, clear scenarios they don't want to be in. (Again, this isn't a comment on the girl at the center of the case).

Pressurised, or interested? Women do have a choice, contrary to what some folks would believe.
I mean, you implied the one who said 'no' was pressurised into saying no-but I'd argue she simply wasn't interested.
The other scenario is that the girl in this case could have been interested in having sexual intercourse with two guys.

Again, none of us knows the actual events, barring those in the room and in the courtroom. Either way, there were no winners in this case.

Muahahaha wrote: »

Interesting news on the front page of the Irish Times. One of the jurors posted comments on www.broadsheet.ie outlining the jurys decision to acquit. The juror has now been referred to the Attorney General in NI and may face prosecution.

I think I read that twitter. She outlined the case. It was shared on reddit.

ameirecan

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think I read that twitter. She outlined the case. It was shared on reddit.

Does anyone have a link to what she posted exactly?

Ardillaun

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

I sampled some of the pages on this thread and was pleasantly surprised at the good sense shown - not nearly as much ranting as I'd expected. IMO it was the correct verdict but a very sorry tale nonetheless.

Well dont go over to Twitter whatever you do, it is carnage over there with one group claiming the girl is a liar and the other group throwing the jurys decision out the window.

Posters I would agree with have been described as 'vile filth' on p.ie. I avoided comment during the trial esp. as I am a rugby fan and guilty of serious bias already. This thing about the witness lying though is hard to credit - it's highly unlikely you'd go through such a harrowing ordeal if you did not believe the allegations made. Also, Rory Best did not deserve flak for agreeing to be a character witness and attending the trail as directed.

Faugheen

Ardillaun wrote: »

Muahahaha wrote: »

Ardillaun wrote: »

I sampled some of the pages on this thread and was pleasantly surprised at the good sense shown - not nearly as much ranting as I'd expected. IMO it was the correct verdict but a very sorry tale nonetheless.

Well dont go over to Twitter whatever you do, it is carnage over there with one group claiming the girl is a liar and the other group throwing the jurys decision out the window.

Posters I would agree with have been described as 'vile filth' on p.ie. I avoided comment during the trial esp. as I am a rugby fan and guilty of serious bias already. This thing about the witness lying though is hard to credit - it's highly unlikely you'd go through such a harrowing ordeal if you did not believe the allegations made. Also, Rory Best did not deserve flak for agreeing to be a character witness and attending the trail as directed.

Rory Best was asked to by the defence counsel. He wasn't ordered to. Only the judge can do that. He could have easily said 'no, thank you,' when it comes to attending the trial.

The captain of the Irish rugby team attended a rape trial where two of his mates are involved on the day the complainant was going to start giving evidence. It was never a good idea for someone of Best's standing to attend on that particular day.

I'm not saying there was anything malicious in it from the point of view of Best. In fact, I don't believe that at all, but he really should have known better.

RabbleRouser2k

ameirecan wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to what she posted exactly?

Thought it was a juror-turns out she's a journalist for joe.ie.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RosannaCooney/status/977183022704361472

So not the right feed, but she does give detailed accounts of the trial. It's very interesting reading, she goes into detail about the laws, and judges stipulations etc.

Judge:
Dr. Lavery from the Rowan clinic noted injuries to the woman's private parts (purple bruising) and he made a DVD of the wound internal to the vaginal wall (1cm bleeding laceration internal tear).
‏
Judge reminds Jury of Dr Hall's evidence, a medical expert for the defence.

Dr Hall said of the DVD all she saw was the pool of blood, she didn't see where the blood was coming from and didn't see the cervix, she said the DVD was not of the greatest quality.

Judge:
Dr Hall said bleeding wounds were not commmon in sexual assualt cases.

Both Dr Hall and Dr Lavery agreed it is not possible to age bruising but Dr hall said the purple bruising indicated it was recent.

Judge:
Both docots agreed that it was not possible to detect whether penetration had taken place.

Dr Hall said the most common areas during a sexual assualt are the same areas where the complainant had injuries.

Judge:
Dr Hall said vaginal wall injury is not common area to be injured and one reason could be if the force applied is excessively violent.

She said if the casue was excessive force she would have expected other areas to be injured to.

sightband

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The problem when is that when you're famous - especially for something that involves representing your country - you're expected to be upstanding and ethical in behaviour and presentation at all times. Even when not "on duty". These guys were far from it and any organisation that they represent has the right to drop them from any endorsement duties

At the end of the day you know as well as I do: what people see these guys are endorsing isn't just the product or a rugby shirt.

How did Simon Zebo and Connor Murray escape totally unscathed from their own threesome soirée few years back? Granted there was no question ever of it being non consensual but it was hardly behaviour fitting of representatives of their country, sponsors didn’t seem to have an issue and Murray is the golden boy of Irish rugby. Different rules back then perhaps? How times have changed in only a short few years.

What I really don’t get is why these rugby lads want to be getting intimate with each other and women at the same time. Bunch of f*cking oddballs.

RabbleRouser2k

sightband wrote: »

How did Simon Zebo and Connor Murray escape totally unscathed from their own threesome soirée few years back? Granted there was no question ever of it being non consensual but it was hardly behaviour fitting of representatives of their country, sponsors didn’t seem to have an issue and Murray is the golden boy of Irish rugby. Different rules back then perhaps? How times have changed in only a short few years.

Because they took out an injunction on the reporting of the case. I think Zebo later stated it wasn't him, as there was a video, too, I believe.

Frankly, yeah, they do seem like a bunch of weirdos, tbh.

If they want a bonding experience, go fishing, go to the movies, hang out at the pub-attend a concert.

Frankly I can't imagine anything worse than staring at someone elses junk.

pc7

My friend coaches young lads 18-21 and he’s has to look up urban dictionary some of the time to see what they are talking about when they are regailing their weekend tales. We’re all late 30’s early 40’s and are shocked at the stuff they get up too (consensually). We aren’t prudes by any means but I feel the easy access to porn has opened young people up to more ‘adventerous’ activies like group sex that maybe they are not mature enough to handle.

Muahahaha

Im wondering if the juror posting comments on Broadsheet after the trial could develop into something even bigger?

Im presuming if they get arrested for not following the judges instructions post trial then their phone/laptop will be seized by the PSNI. And then if the PSNI find they were browsing sites reporting on the trial while it was ongoing we could be into mis-trial territory.

Has anyone seen the jurors comments? Broadsheet took them down at the request of authorities in Northern Ireland but its likely they were screen shot before that happened.

Irish Times story about the juror here
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-juror-s-online-comments-are-referred-to-ag-1.3445059

Comments made online by a juror in the Belfast rape trial have been referred to Northern Ireland’s attorney general.

The juror made the remarks in the comments section of an article on Broadsheet.ie about the acquittals in the trial.

The first comment appeared at 8.26pm, seven hours after the jury delivered unanimous not guilty verdict on all counts. The juror made a series of comments describing the trial as well as answering questions from other users.

In the posts the juror addressed the reasons the jury came to its decision and defended the amount of time it had taken to reach a verdict.

Yesterday, following a query from The Irish Times about the remarks, the Public Prosecution Service said it had referred the matter to the office of the Lord Chief Justice, the most senior judge in Northern Ireland.

The Lord Chief Justice’s office then said it had referred the matter to the attorney general’s office and “other relevant authorities”.

A Police Service of Northern Ireland spokeswoman said: “We are aware of comments made on a social media platform.”

‘I’m in big trouble’
Speaking to The Irish Times last night, the juror said they had not commented on anything related to the jury’s deliberations, and therefore were not in breach of the judge’s order that jurors must not discuss the deliberations.

The juror contacted The Irish Times to say they had been told by the Lord Chief Justice’s office to remove the comments. The juror said they then got in touch with Broadsheet which took down the comments.

The Lord Chief Justice’s representation also asked them if they had a solicitor, the juror said, adding: “I’m in big trouble.”

“I’m sitting here in the kitchen waiting for the cops to arrive, two PSNI constables to arrive and I’m going to be handcuffed away and all I’ve done is just, I made a posting about, this is why there was a return of not guilty,” the juror said.

“When we were all discharged, the 11 of us, the only thing the judge said was, ‘Do you know what, go about your everyday life, whatever, business as usual, but don’t reveal discussions within the jury room,’ and none of that was like part of anything I have said.”

um7y1h83ge06nx

I know this is broader than this issue but I do have concern at where so called liberals are leading the country and the world in general.

They can have a real disdain for facts, process and the law in general. Whether it was the "peaceful protests" in Jobstown, giving out about the Lidl looters being called scumbags or now a huge backlash against the courts system and trial by jury.

There can be, and I hate to describe it this way, a big of a class angle to it. People from lower socioeconomic backgrounds given lots of leeway and benefit of the doubt and "privileged" people like these rugby players given a much harder time and assumed to be aggressors and guilty.

Maybe it's because a lot of these so called liberals are left leaning and therefore have a mistrust of our governments and legal systems. Kangaroo courts ftw.

anthonyjmaher

Just wondering how far in advance these marches were organised in advance. Obviously they wouldn't have known the exact date of when the verdict came through, but it seems like these groups had this plan in their back pocket for the day after the verdict, without necessarily caring about what the verdict was. Were the marches pre-planned?

Hoboo

Only march that should have happened yesterday is by men demanding the right to the presumption of innocence, and the right to the same anonymity afforded to the accuser.

nullzero

I'm confused in this situation if I'm honest.
The public don't have the full facts here and although I myself found the story surrounding this trial distasteful and the behaviour of those involved to be at best unsavoury I think we have to consider that a jury made a decision based on the fact that presented.
Do Ulster rugby run a mafia style jury intimation system? I'm not so sure.

Has the rush to mass protest surprised me or anybody else? Sadly not.

In an era where gender bias is being rightly debated and challenged are we simply replacing misogynistic values with misandrist values?
Are all men guilty until proven innocent, and still guilty even after an innocent verdict?
Personally I find the idea of successful young men taking advantage of eager teenage girls sick, but it doesn't add up to rape either in all cases.

It's high time that the online echo chambers were dismantled and debate over such issues was brought into sharper focus in a larger forum, it seems today's feminists are intent on creating a world of female domination instead of a world of equality.

erica74

Hoboo wrote: »

Only march that should have happened yesterday is by men demanding the right to the presumption of innocence, and the right to the same anonymity afforded to the accuser.

How come there was no such march organised?

suicide_circus

erica74 wrote: »

How come there was no such match organised?

Because the patriarchy

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

it seems today's feminists are intent on creating a world of female domination instead of a world of equality.

There's websites you can go to for that sort of thing..

pjohnson

erica74 wrote: »

How come there was no such match organised?

Intelligence I guess.

padd b1975

#I'maBelieber.

Homer

erica74 wrote: »

How come there was no such match organised?

Working I guess?

Hoboo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

There is no such thing as the personal responsibility of somebody to not be the victim of a crime.

There is only the responsibility of a criminal.

Funny how the "personal responsibility" merchants tend to only ever focus on the "personal responsibility" of victims, never on the personal responsibility of criminals.

That would indeed be the misogynist coming out in you.

Personal responsibility to not be the victim of a crime? WTF does that even mean!

Personal responsibility to keep yourself safe. Best of luck educating criminals and reminding them of their personal responsibilities.

If you think its better not to avoid the avoidable because you've the right to do what you want, knock yourself out, see where that gets you.

I must tell my two nieces I'm a misogynist, ignore my advice, go back to parties with strangers, because you know what girls, its someone else responsibility to not attack you.

Thats great advice alright. How dumb can one be.

Hoboo

erica74 wrote: »

How come there was no such match organised?

Fear of being labelled a misogynist or rape apologist?

Cant even have an opinion on the subject let alone have a march.

cloudatlas

nullzero wrote: »

I'm confused in this situation if I'm honest.
The public don't have the full facts here and although I myself found the story surrounding this trial distasteful and the behaviour of those involved to be at best unsavoury I think we have to consider that a jury made a decision based on the fact that presented.
Do Ulster rugby run a mafia style jury intimation system? I'm not so sure.

Has the rush to mass protest surprised me or anybody else? Sadly not.

In an era where gender bias is being rightly debated and challenged are we simply replacing misogynistic values with misandrist values?
Are all men guilty until proven innocent, and still guilty even after an innocent verdict?
Personally I find the idea of successful young men taking advantage of eager teenage girls sick, but it doesn't add up to rape either in all cases.

It's high time that the online echo chambers were dismantled and debate over such issues was brought into sharper focus in a larger forum, it seems today's feminists are intent on creating a world of female domination instead of a world of equality.

Rubbish besides the Jordan Peterson hero says women should behave like men and fight as individuals to get what they want, but if there is civic disobedience or any kind of effort to reach for something it's met with wide eyed wingeing the women want dominance.

Reminds me of the homophobia during the gay marriage referendum, you can't say that we are victims of you calling us homophobes.

pjohnson

cloudatlas wrote: »

Rubbish besides the Jordan Peterson hero says women should behave like men and fight as individuals to get what they want, but if there is civic disobedience or any kind of effort to reach for something it's met with wide eyed wingeing the women want dominance.

Reminds me of the homophobia during the gay marriage referendum, you can't say that we are victims of you calling us homophobes.

Still got that chip then.

raspberrypi67

Reasonable doubt !!!!

bluewolf wrote: »

Surprised at the verdict and it being so quick

paw patrol

Why was Rory Harrison charged ?
There seems to have been no evidence against him. His character seems to indicate that he is a decent fellow.
The victim praised him, his character references show a nice guy.

Some of the more rabid protesters want the men punished for the whatsapp comments - even on that (admittedly bat**** mental yardstick) what did he say and was he even in the whatsapp group?
Yet he has his name tarnished?


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/rory-harrison-young-man-joined-his-friends-on-june-28-in-a-lastminute-decision-36753102.html

He was not part of the WhatsApp groups in which explicit messages were exchanged.

Widow, Maura Cushnahan, who gave evidence on his behalf, spoke of his "wonderful qualities". She met him during a distressing situation at a Belfast bus station and felt compelled to speak out after reading about him in the press, she told the judge.

.his name tarnished and linked to this trial forever now.he is the real victim in this ..

RabbleRouser2k

pc7 wrote: »

My friend coaches young lads 18-21 and he’s has to look up urban dictionary some of the time to see what they are talking about when they are regailing their weekend tales. We’re all late 30’s early 40’s and are shocked at the stuff they get up too (consensually). We aren’t prudes by any means but I feel the easy access to porn has opened young people up to more ‘adventerous’ activies like group sex that maybe they are not mature enough to handle.

Everyone's in a rush to grow up-and thus is making mistakes that are just absolutely ridiculous. There's even this delayed adolescence that goes on until people die-from old age,I mean-not something they do.

I remember knowing a girl in her late teens, early 20s from a privileged background who had zero self esteem-like, pretty much every guy could hit her with a line, and she was their's. One guy even had her as 'friends with benefits'...she desperately wanted a relationship with him, he pretty much
used her, then said 'sayonara' when she got clingy. I'd love to say, in the years since, she got wiser-but nope. There's a sad 'girls are nobody unless they have a man' mentality, among many young women.

Too many people I knew with had no issue cheating on a girl either, despite being in a relationship. (One guy I knew cheated on his girlfriend repeatedly-because she was a virgin, and so he hooked up with his ex on a night out after a few beers. More than once).

Hell, when I was doing my LC, one of the girls in my class was pregnant during it.

(Also, guys can often brag and 'boast' about their exploits-when really they went home and played xbox/ playstation because she wasn't interested).


I saw an article in the examiner where the reporter was like 'this case may change how rapes are prosecuted' due to the emotional protests. And I'm sitting there like 'it was prosecuted in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Not here, in the republic. Cases are handled way differently down here. What the hells is this person writing?'

professore

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Everyone's in a rush to grow up-and thus is making mistakes that are just absolutely ridiculous. There's even this delayed adolescence that goes on until people die-from old age,I mean-not something they do.

I remember knowing a girl in her late teens, early 20s from a privileged background who had zero self esteem-like, pretty much every guy could hit her with a line, and she was their's. One guy even had her as 'friends with benefits'...she desperately wanted a relationship with him, he pretty much
used her, then said 'sayonara' when she got clingy. I'd love to say, in the years since, she got wiser-but nope. There's a sad 'girls are nobody unless they have a man' mentality, among many young women.

Too many people I knew with had no issue cheating on a girl either, despite being in a relationship. (One guy I knew cheated on his girlfriend repeatedly-because she was a virgin, and so he hooked up with his ex on a night out after a few beers. More than once).

Hell, when I was doing my LC, one of the girls in my class was pregnant during it.

(Also, guys can often brag and 'boast' about their exploits-when really they went home and played xbox/ playstation because she wasn't interested).


I saw an article in the examiner where the reporter was like 'this case may change how rapes are prosecuted' due to the emotional protests. And I'm sitting there like 'it was prosecuted in Belfast, Northern Ireland. Not here, in the republic. Cases are handled way differently down here. What the hells is this person writing?'

Yep that's a common type of girl. They also have a nose for the most dickish men out there and have zero interest in a man that would treat them properly. Exactly the kind of guy that would boast about spit roasting etc. And the girl will tell everybody he has a side you don't see.

I guess being treated like crap is somehow exciting to them. They are the same ones who say all men are assholes. I have little patience with women like this.

I think a proper debate is needed about all this stuff, not a bunch of angry feminists and men's rights activists shouting at each other on twitter about how their gender never does anything wrong and the other one is evil. Having daughters has opened my eyes to how duplicitous and manipulative girls can be. I already know what some men are like. And how a lot of women focus on the wrong stuff when spotting a bad guy. Or maybe that's what they secretly want all along. Men and women are ****ty in different ways.

If we talked honestly about stuff like this we could make a better society for everybody.

And misogynist is the most overused word in the English language today.

prawnsambo

professore wrote: »

Yep that's a common type of girl. They also have a nose for the most dickish men out there and have zero interest in a man that would treat them properly. Exactly the kind of guy that would boast about spit roasting etc. And the girl will tell everybody he has a side you don't see.

We're probably into the realms of amateur psychology here (I doubt either of us could claim to being qualified), but isn't it likely that someone of low self-esteem would deem themselves unworthy of someone 'who would treat them properly'?

professore wrote: »

I guess being treated like crap is somehow exciting to them. They are the same ones who say all men are assholes. I have little patience with women like this.

And then you contradict yourself?

professore wrote: »

I think a proper debate is needed about all this stuff, not a bunch of angry feminists and men's rights activists shouting at each other on twitter about how their gender never does anything wrong and the other one is evil. Having daughters has opened my eyes to how duplicitous and manipulative girls can be. I already know what some men are like. And how a lot of women focus on the wrong stuff when spotting a bad guy. Or maybe that's what they secretly want all along. Men and women are ****ty in different ways.

If we talked honestly about stuff like this we could make a better society for everybody.

And misogynist is the most overused word in the English language today.

You haven't said a positive thing about women in this entire post. Are you sure misgoynist is an overused word? :rolleyes:

professore

Imagine Dara Florence was a man and gave the exact same evidence in the case. What would have been the reaction?

padser

professore wrote: »

Imagine Dara Florence was a man and gave the exact same evidence in the case. What would have been the reaction?

Easy, she would be in the dock charged with obstruction of justice

professore

prawnsambo wrote: »

We're probably into the realms of amateur psychology here (I doubt either of us could claim to being qualified), but isn't it likely that someone of low self-esteem would deem themselves unworthy of someone 'who would treat them properly'?

And then you contradict yourself?


You haven't said a positive thing about women in this entire post. Are you sure misgoynist is an overused word? :rolleyes:

Oh FFS. I didn't say a positive thing about men either. You're one of those women aren't you?

I don't buy that low self esteem argument. They have no problem rejecting men. If they had low self esteem they would date the overweight nerd. But its the "popular" (with a certain bunch of assholes) guys they go after.

Hit a bit too close to the bone did I?

CruelCoin

cloudatlas wrote: »

Rubbish besides the Jordan Peterson hero says women should behave like men and fight as individuals to get what they want,

No, he says that if women want to get ahead in male dominated industries, then they need be more assertive in the workplace.

Very different to waving flags.

prawnsambo

professore wrote: »

Oh FFS. I didn't say a positive thing about men either. You're one of those women aren't you?

I don't buy that low self esteem argument. They have no problem rejecting men. If they had low self esteem they would date the overweight nerd. But its the "popular" (with a certain bunch of assholes) guys they go after.

Hit a bit too close to the bone did I?

Clearly, jumping to conclusions is a feature of your thought process. And did you forget that you referenced "a man that would treat them properly". Is that not positive?

As for the low self esteem bit, that's what the OP was talking about in the post that you replied to. Forgive me if I've read your post in that context. Obviously you just quoted them in order to have a tangential rant about 'a certain type of woman'. Carry on so. No point in continuing a discussion wih someone who's so defensive as to reply with a personal atatck.

Lucy8080

#Ibelieveher.

The sober woman ,who declined to be the meat in a sandwich.

I have a sneaking suspicion that yesterdays march was not in support of her.

That strong woman in this case who wasn't interested in some notion of sisterhood/brotherhood and instead just tried to describe what actually happened.

The mob don't seem too interested in standing by that "sister".

It's a funny old world.

jr86

paw patrol wrote: »

.his name tarnished and linked to this trial forever now.he is the real victim in this ..

Yes and no

I'd be fairly sure in a few month's time, 90% of people won't even remember his name, and he'll have no problem getting on with his life

I do feel sorry for him though, it was a real case of wrong place wrong time for him.

Guy:Incognito

hill16bhoy wrote: »

.

Funny how the "personal responsibility" merchants tend to only ever focus on the "personal responsibility" of victims, never on the personal responsibility of criminals.
.

There's an assumption that people know that everyone thinks criminals shouldn't be committing crimes. Ffs, we're all supposed to be adults. That shouldn't need to be spelled out.

up for anything

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you sure misgoynist is an overused word? :rolleyes:

Is that a Jew who doesn't like non-Jews?

Guy:Incognito

retro:electro wrote: »

Can’t tell you how many times I’ve read “the four rapists” over social media today. Can’t be easy for Harrison having his name muddied in with those accused of rape and exposure. A lot of uneducated people spouting nonsense, but that’s on both sides mind you. But people should at least educate themselves on what the charges were before they assert an opinion on the case

A tweet from an English female comedian (EDIT Elilie Taylor) popped up on my feed after being retweeted by somone I follow . It caught my eye because of the blue tick so figured I'd see what famous people were saying. Usual stuff and then "ibelieveher" . The replies were then loads of the same stuff and people pointedly calling them rapists and saying let the lads use them in civil court, knowing full well it won't happen.

They are like the lads looting Lidl, hiding in a crowd acting like a feral mob.

A theme of plenty of tweets seems to be people going on about how it's a disgrace she was subjected to cross examination on the stand for days. What do people want? She gives a statement and the defence can't question it?

iamwhoiam

Lucy8080 wrote: »

#Ibelieveher.

The sober woman ,who declined to be the meat in a sandwich.

I have a sneaking suspicion that yesterdays march was not in support of her.

That strong woman in this case who wasn't interested in some notion of sisterhood/brotherhood and instead just tried to describe what actually happened.

The mob don't seem too interested in standing by that "sister".

It's a funny old world.

Yes . So where is the " we believe her " march for that woman ?

Defunkd

up for anything wrote: »

Is that a Jew who doesn't like non-Jews?

Oy! Be careful.