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

MarinersBlues

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People pontificating about how they know better than the jury in the case or the judge or how they "know" they were guilty or how innocent people shouldn't be allowed to resume their careers and should have their lives ruined because of false allegations or defaming innocent people online because they can hide in the mob or marching based on half arsed twitter hashtags and very little actual information . Is long past becoming boring.


Focus your energy on people that have actually committed crimes if that's what you want to do with your life and leave people that have be fairly tried to get on with their lives.

There's a lot wrong with pursuing people based on your own I'll informed opinions, ignoring any evidence.

The irony is that a lot of the people "protesting" The verdict would also join a protest against prejudice.

Sidebaro

Guy:Incognito wrote:

Who is being labelled a slut and a liar? Have you a name...................

I don't but you're naive to think she hasn't been exposed to it. If she logged on to Twitter she wouldn't be long before seeing it.

FrancieBrady

Sidebaro wrote: »

You are assuming she falsely accused them.

I wasn't talking about this case specifically.

pjohnson

Sidebaro wrote: »

I don't but you're naive to think she hasn't been exposed to it. If she logged on to Twitter she wouldn't be long before seeing it.

And if Jackson logs on he will see people denying he is innocent. But I guess thats OK.

irishman86

cloudatlas wrote: »

I don't agree that outside of that their behaviour was innocuous and that they should be role models and on a rugby pitch. Sorry.

Wont someone please think of the children :rolleyes:
Welcome to 2018 gramps, people talk like that all the time in private

Sidebaro

Guy:Incognito wrote:

People do things for all sorts of reasons. Some are just crazy.

Guy:Incognito wrote:

Anyone who has worked in retail for any length of time will know how many ****ing lunatics there are walking the streets. Most are fully functioning people 99% of the time.

I still doubt that this case will cause a lot of false accusations just for attention, no matter how crazy you think the population are. The suggestion was that it will inspire people is ludicrous.

razorblunt

Augeo wrote: »

I think Jackson was definitely having pentetrative sex with her. The witness claimed so, so did the girl in question ...... Olding who was receiving oral from the same girl claimed he couldn't see what Jackson was doing. I reckon "couldn't see" was a sort of play on words as he probably wasn't looking but was quite likely 100% sure there was penetrative sex going on.

Jackson perhaps stuck to the didn't ride her line as if there's no sex there can't be rape, IMO

Rape covers digital penetration too. They didn't find any proof he had sex though.
If he couldn't get it up, he might just been, you know, back there. The position then made it look like he was.

Sidebaro

goz83 wrote:

You reckon his life is better or worse since the accusation?

Worse. What's that got to do with it? The case you are talking about didn't include a public figure so it's understandable why it didn't get as much publicity.

Guy:Incognito

Sidebaro wrote: »

I don't but you're naive to think she hasn't been exposed to it. If she logged on to Twitter she wouldn't be long before seeing it.

It'll be immeasurably drowned out by all the people going on about how the 4 lads (ffs) are rapists and how the whole legal system is a disgrace for her having to take the stand or having to go through a trial at all and mountains or ibelieveher. From casually browsing my Twitter feed a couple of times it's overwhelmingly in support of her and no calling her a liar or a slut. Before you dive in with an example I'm not saying no one said it, but the vast majority of people making themselves known are I believeher ****.

tritium

spookwoman wrote: »

nope no gender gap here Remember the guy who raped his girlfriend while she slept, he got a suspended sentence.
http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-sentence-appealed-norway-2487585-Dec2015/

Pretty sure there’s very few arguing that shouldn’t have been a (non suspended) jail sentence

As opposed to groups like WAR who publicly campaign for non prosecution in false accusation cases

Sidebaro

pjohnson wrote:

And if Jackson logs on he will see people denying he is innocent. But I guess thats OK.

Stay on topic, I was referring to her and the attention she is getting. The discussion I was engaging in with the other person was about her not Paddy Jackson.

Assetbacked

Sidebaro wrote: »

Don't forget the labelling of slut and liar.

The possibility that she would want to be gangbanged, be penetrated in every hole possible and degraded is non-existent to people. Why? It’s kinky sex; people love it and do not need to feel guilty for it. We don’t know her situation, perhaps her fear of being named publicly with videos and the witness telling people was too strong so tentatively went down the path of “it wasn’t consensual” but then it snowballed. We don’t know though and I’m not spreading that around unlike #IBelieveHer attention seeking ignorant fools who seem to have a proper insight into the girl’s mind. It really is so pathetic and misguided.

cloudatlas

irishman86 wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

I don't agree that outside of that their behaviour was innocuous and that they should be role models and on a rugby pitch. Sorry.

Wont someone please think of the children :rolleyes:
Welcome to 2018 gramps, people talk like that all the time in private

you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.

Sidebaro

Guy:Incognito wrote:

It'll be immeasurably drowned out by all the people going on about how the 4 lads (ffs) are rapists and how the whole legal system is a disgrace for her having to take the stand or having to go through a trial at all and mountains or ibelieveher. From casually browsing my Twitter feed a couple of times it's overwhelmingly in support of her and no calling her a liar or a slut. Before you dive in with an example I'm not saying no one said it, but the vast majority of people making themselves known are I believeher ****.

It will not be immeasurably drowned out to her. To us, sure, but it's not us that are being talked about.

Sidebaro

Assetbacked wrote:

The possibility that she would want to be gangbanged, be penetrated in every hole possible and degraded is non-existent to people. Why? It’s kinky sex; people love it and do not need to feel guilty for it. We don’t know her situation, perhaps her fear of being named publicly with videos and the witness telling people was too strong so tentatively went down the path of “it wasn’t consensual†but then it snowballed. We don’t know though and I’m not spreading that around unlike #IBelieveHer attention seeking ignorant fools who seem to have a proper insight into the girl’s mind. It really is so pathetic and misguided.

Not sure why you quoted me? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the conversation I was having. If I'm wrong then correct me.

Guy:Incognito

cloudatlas wrote: »

you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.

Nobody starts out on the road to being a professional sports person with the hopes of being a role model to kids. At the stage they start they are kids themselves.

They shouldn't be forced to take on a role model position against their will just because of their job. Just like it shouldn't be assumed a woman in a traditionally man role wants to be thrust in to the spotlight as the poster girl for feminists everywhere and be made to do it.

Guy:Incognito

Sidebaro wrote: »

It will not be immeasurably drowned out to her. To us, sure, but it's not us that are being talked about.

How do you know? You're assuming she even gives a **** about what's on Twitter.

The same as peoplea ssuming things about the 4 lads in question.

Mrs Shuttleworth

professore wrote: »

Pressure from whom? Who is telling young women the way to get a partner later in life is to sleep around? Guys who want to sleep with them? Well what else are they going to say?

What kind of gang encourages everyone to sleep around? Some sort of sex cult?

This is the debate we should be having.

Men don't have any interest in women who won't put out for them. That goes without saying.

I find men boring because they generally approach women solely on that basis and with the kind of infantile talk witnessed in those text messages.

If a woman wants a "partner" she has to put up with this cr@p at the early stages.

goz83

Sidebaro wrote: »

And you think this attention is something that will inspire women now? The thrill of getting caught? That's a real danger from the fallout of this case?

Yes, it will inspire some women. You're naive if you think it won't. I won't pretend to understand, or know the motivations of others, but I do know that some will indeed draw motivation from the type of case I posted and the main one in this thread.

If you had to choose....even after the outcome of this case, who would you rather be: PJ, or the largely unknown girl in the case?

Sidebaro

Guy:Incognito wrote:

How do you know? You're assuming she even gives a **** about what's on Twitter.

Okay, what about in her own community then? She's not anonymous there. Even if it's not happening, in her mind it could very well be. You've seen how many people in this thread think the verdict equates her to being a liar. I doubt she will just brush it all off and go back to living her life before the incident so easy.

Sidebaro

pjohnson wrote:

Great answer. Who cares about the victim now?

You jumped into the middle of a discussion I was having to talk about something off topic, what the hell do you want me to say? If you have a question for me then ask it and I'll consider dealing with it, stop with the insinuating language and be direct.

cloudatlas

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.

Nobody starts out on the road to being a professional sports person with the hopes of being a role model to kids. At the stage they start they are kids themselves.

They shouldn't be forced to take on a role model position against their will just because of their job. Just like it shouldn't be assumed a woman in a traditionally man role wants to be thrust in to the spotlight as the poster girl for feminists everywhere and be made to do it.

Well that's the way the world works, I don't agree with their low opinion of women as common prostitutes 'brasses' etc., I found their behaviour reprehensible I don't want them representing my country. Why is it normal for young men to speak like this and okay but not okay to say you don't like it and don't want them representing your nation.

irishman86

cloudatlas wrote: »

you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.

What are you talking about. This is how men and women talk about the opposite sex
The catholic church doesnt rule us anymore, we are freely let talk about banging
You are a prude, i am not thats the difference

ShowMeTheCash

Arne_Saknussem wrote: »

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.

I think it still refers back to the "Act"

The Principal Act” means the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981
And if you look at that

.—(1) A man commits rape if—

It does not include a woman.

So the section 4 1990 Act is true but I think (and I can be corrected) it can only be deemed rape if a man does it.

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

Being from a privileged background and having a talent for sports means you can't be a sorry excuse for a person now?

Its been ages since someone brought up the idea of White Male Privilege, well done.

SAMTALK

Sidebaro wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand you? Are you saying that the personal attention, labelling of slut and liar doesn't matter because the general attention, #ibelieveher is worth it? Maybe I'm getting you wrong with that?

You I just think you're intent on not seeing the bigger picture.
You do realise there are a lot of unhinged people out there?
You do realise there are a lot of attention seeking people out there/

I actually believe that this girl thinks she was raped. Was she raped. I honestly dont know so I have to believe the jury got this right on the evidence that they had.
The feminist movement jumped on the bandwagon straight away and from a lot of posts Im reading on facebook etc a lot of them dont even know what exactly they are marching for .

RabbleRouser2k

irishrebe wrote: »

This reeks of 'Nice Guy Syndrome'.

Me? No, definitely not-she wasn't my type. I prefer girls who are tough, able to stand up for themselves and able to tell a guy to get lost.
They often didn't have 'privileged' backgrounds either-but had a real backbone I found charming. (Had boyfriends too-story of mah life, dangit).

Many of those ladies wouldn't hang out with the likes of 'low self esteem girl' because they would think she was a bimbo. (Actual wording used in relation to one girl in particular).

The girls with backbone picked decent guys, one's who treated em equally with respect. There wouldn't be a situation like the belfast case, barring some sinister incident.

On the other hand, I knew girls far older who, for some reason, still picked the douchebag. Like they never learned 'douchebags are always douchebags'. Those relationships would be lucky to last more than three months.

GiftofGab wrote: »

Do you have the link to the reddit??

Yes, but its more of a discussion group, and I don't want boards to get in trouble, in case there is any controversial material, so can I pm you the link?

irishman86

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Men don't have any interest in women who won't put out for them. That goes without saying.

I find men boring because they generally approach women solely on that basis and with the kind of infantile talk witnessed in those text messages.

If a woman wants a "partner" she has to put up with this cr@p at the early stages.

Where do you get this bull****
You mentioned private rugby boys already and they dont talk like that
Like serious nonsense being spouted right here

Sidebaro

goz83 wrote:

Yes, it will inspire some women. You're naive if you think it won't. I won't pretend to understand, or know the motivations of others, but I do know that some will indeed draw motivation from the type of case I posted and the main one in this thread.

I could understand that inspiration a lot more if it was a guilty verdict, or if guilty verdicts were more common.

goz83 wrote:

If you had to choose....even after the outcome of this case, who would you rather be: PJ, or the largely unknown girl in the case?

The largely unknown girl is largely unknown to us. In her community she is widely known. I'd rather be Paddy Jackson. The verdict went in my favour.

Sidebaro

GreeBo wrote:

Its been ages since someone brought up the idea of White Male Privilege, well done.

You added the white male bit in fairness.

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

Sure, no worries that a woman who is raped in Ireland can't have a legal abortion because women in Saudi Arabia have it worse! Silly b1tches should just all shut up and stop bothering you!

You keep peddling this broken record in this thread.....

Here is the thing, you want to harp on about woman's rights but the fact of the matter is, it is other women that mainly head up the pro-life campaign.

You campaign for womans rights?
Or is it the case you want all woman to agree with your opinion?

Sidebaro

SAMTALK wrote:

You I just think you're intent on not seeing the bigger picture. You do realise there are a lot of unhinged people out there? You do realise there are a lot of attention seeking people out there/

Of course. I don't think a case where the verdict returned was no guilty would encourage 'a lot' of people to falsely accuse others of rape. Especially since the chances of a conviction are so low. If it was a guilty verdict then I could get on board with you.

professore

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Men don't have any interest in women who won't put out for them. That goes without saying.

I find men boring because they generally approach women solely on that basis and with the kind of infantile talk witnessed in those text messages.

If a woman wants a "partner" she has to put up with this cr@p at the early stages.

What kind of "men" did you hang out with? I and most guys I know talk to women as human beings.

And that "infantile talk" is used because if a guy is after sex, that kind of "infantile talk" is what gets you laid. Not a debate on the pros and cons of Brexit for example. Guys quickly learn any sort of meaningful conversation in a bar or nightclub scenario turns off women.

How about actually talking to a guy and getting to know him? Is that out the window entirely now? Or do women look for quality men by getting hammered in a pub and shagging them indiscriminately? If that's what they want to do then more power to them, but they are not going to find a life partner that way.

hill16bhoy

OwlsZat wrote: »

Where was that said? I dismissed earlier speculation about drugs but maybe there is more to it. I'd assume that the photo's that were taken on the night we analysed closely for dilated pupils? Also is there much of a scene in Belfast for ecstasy. That's the only drug I could imagine would keep someone up as long. 30 hours awake is no mean feat regardless of the mental state.

The complainant stated it during the trial. It's in Conor Gallagher's summary of the trial in yesterday's Irish Times.

That you're speculating about drugs and ecstasy as a reason for this betrays a rather hefty bias against the complainant on your part, I would venture.

I would find it entirely understandable that a woman who believed she had been raped would not be able to sleep for 30 hours.

Also, I would imagine most people here have stayed awake for longer than 30 hours plenty of times without drugs. Certainly I have.

OwlsZat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Men don't have any interest in women who won't put out for them. That goes without saying. 

I find men boring because they generally approach women solely on that basis and with the kind of infantile talk witnessed in those text messages.

If a woman wants a "partner" she has to put up with this cr@p at the early stages.

Stop conflating the thread with your obvious prejudice against men. It's a thread for discussing the outcome of the trial, not dissecting the workings of your mind.

SAMTALK

Sidebaro wrote: »

Of course. I don't think a case where the verdict returned was no guilty would encourage 'a lot' of people to falsely accuse others of rape. Especially since the chances of a conviction are so low. If it was a guilty verdict then I could get on board with you.

I give up!
I wasnt talking about the verdict which at lot of people dont seem to respect.
Im talking about all the media attention.

You do realise that some people just jump on a bandwagon without all the facts, but sure thats ok.. it's for my fellow women Im doing it
The amount of people who didnt even realise where this trial took place is actually scary

cloudatlas

irishman86 wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.

What are you talking about. This is how men and women talk about the opposite sex
The catholic church doesnt rule us anymore, we are freely let talk about banging
You are a prude, i am not thats the difference

Your own social circle is not exclusive. No I'm not a prude I don't talk about women referring to them as sluts and prostitutes. I show respect towards sex partners.

hill16bhoy

professore wrote: »

What kind of "men" did you hang out with? I and most guys I know talk to women as human beings.

And that "infantile talk" is used because if a guy is after sex, that kind of "infantile talk" is what gets you laid. Not a debate on the pros and cons of Brexit for example. Guys quickly learn any sort of meaningful conversation in a bar or nightclub scenario turns off women.

I don't think you could have contradicted yourself any more if you had tried.

Though I'm not sure many women would be turned on by such infantile talk as you have displayed here.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Roe McDermott on TV3 Tonight Show last night wasn't picked up when she suggested that even if a woman, after a night of what the male believed to be consensual, if drunken sex, wakes up in the morning and decides it wasn't consensual, must be listened to and action taken.

Does she realise how mindbogglingly impossible it makes things?

She wrote a piece about an alleged assault she experienced-but it's so vague, and so 'huh'? That I'm confused as to what she's implying.

It reads far more like a 'he had a one night stand, then dumped her'. She then brings up the Listowel case, and suddenly I had to check if she was actually Louise O' Neill in disguise.

http://therumpus.net/2015/04/his-greatest-masterpiece/

Much of their ideas stink of impracticalities.

goz83

Sidebaro wrote: »

I could understand that inspiration a lot more if it was a guilty verdict, or if guilty verdicts were more common.

The verdict won't be much of a deterrent. False accusations are made out of malice, greed, jealousy, revenge, attention seeking and the list goes on. The accused are tarnished and a not guilty verdict is nothing more than a get-out-of-jail-card. Many will not accept the verdict and will continue to publicly defame the lads.

The largely unknown girl is largely unknown to us. In her community she is widely known. I'd rather be Paddy Jackson. The verdict went in my favour.

So you think PJ won? I think everyone lost tbh. It's hard to say this as a man, but gender aside, I would prefer to be in the position of the woman (from a purely outsiders perspective, not knowing either the woman, or PJ). Even if I were raped, I believe I would be able to have a better life going forward than to be someone who was accused of rape.

professore

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I don't think you could have contradicted yourself any more if you had tried.

Though I'm not sure many women would be turned on by such infantile talk as you have displayed here.

How is that a contradiction? You can still talk about lighthearted topics without being an asshole. It's not a choice between talking about the Maastricht treaty and calling a woman a slut.

What's wrong with people?

Appledreams15

irishman86 wrote: »

What are you talking about. This is how men and women talk about the opposite sex
The catholic church doesnt rule us anymore, we are freely let talk about banging
You are a prude, i am not thats the difference

I love how youre speaking for all women now as well.
I and my friends have yet to refer to men as prostitutes or to a man as a merry go around after two of us took a turn on him and left him crying

GreeBo

razorblunt wrote: »

Rape covers digital penetration too. They didn't find any proof he had sex though.
If he couldn't get it up, he might just been, you know, back there. The position then made it look like he was.

No, in NI rape requires a penis.

Wombatman

https://twitter.com/ronanlyons/status/979306341004206081

drugstore cowboy

I don't remember this level of outrage in a case that recently happened in this country concerning a Cork girl who claimed she was raped on a rappers tour bus by a couple of roadies. It was a pretty heavy case with reports of girls begging/fighting to be let on the bus, drugs openly being taken in a well known Cork nightclub by the rapper and crew, the crew picking which women were brought onto the bus after the club closed, I believe each guy brought 2 girls on the bus and there's a lot of similarities to the belfast case and the whole bus party sounds pretty debauched.

I'm struggling to grasp why that case was left alone by them and this one isn't? I know the likes of LON complain about white men a lot so did they decide it was best not to protest that case and get stuck into this one?

Genuinely wonder.

Sidebaro

SAMTALK wrote:

I give up! I wasnt talking about the verdict which at lot of people dont seem to respect. Im talking about all the media attention.

It's borderline impossible to see all the media attention, realise it's about a rape case, and not know the verdict.

tritium

MarinersBlues wrote: »

The irony is that a lot of the people "protesting" The verdict would also join a protest against prejudice.

The same folks doing this would have been going nuts at the antics of Ched Evans supporters after the original trial....,

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sightband wrote: »

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.

Not familiar with the case: but the problems these guys face wasn't having a threesome - nothing wrong with that - it's the attitudes and language used in the whatsapp messages.

Sidebaro

goz83 wrote:

So you think PJ won? I think everyone lost tbh. It's hard to say this as a man, but gender aside, I would prefer to be in the position of the woman (from a purely outsiders perspective, not knowing either the woman, or PJ). Even if I were raped, I believe I would be able to have a better life going forward than to be someone who was accused of rape.

You didn't ask who I thought won, you asked who I'd rather be. You'd rather be the woman, I'm not going to ask you 'so you think she won?'

Appledreams15

Assetbacked wrote: »

The possibility that she would want to be gangbanged, be penetrated in every hole possible and degraded is non-existent to people. Why? It’s kinky sex; people love it and do not need to feel guilty for it. We don’t know her situation, perhaps her fear of being named publicly with videos and the witness telling people was too strong so tentatively went down the path of “it wasn’t consensual” but then it snowballed. We don’t know though and I’m not spreading that around unlike #IBelieveHer attention seeking ignorant fools who seem to have a proper insight into the girl’s mind. It really is so pathetic and misguided.

Have you ever wanted to be gangbanged in every hole?

PORN IS NOT REAL!!!

And is another problem. It gives men violent norms if how to treat women.

Why was she crying and hysterical after it if she wanted it