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

_Whimsical_

Rene Happy Hammock wrote: »

That's not what RTE were saying, according to them the people marching were doing so to "seek improvements in how rape victims are treated in the courts system".

It wasn't clear to me if they meant the UK's court system or what.

The woman from the Rape Crisis centre spoke at the rally and asked for changes in the justice system for rape victims. She wants those victims who make it to court, woman(70%) and men(30%),to have a legal representative with them in court.
It wasn't an overturn the verdict rally.

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

There isn't.

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

hill16bhoy

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Presenting miss information that also appears to be a popular tactic..

George asked this question....
"But is there no blame to the person that puts themselves in danger?"

Sorry George not allowed to ask that, do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars!

Cool, thanks for demonstrating that Hook did actually blame a women for her own rape.

emeraldwinter

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The woman from the Rape Crisis centre spoke at the rally and asked for changes in the justice system for rape victims. She wants those victims who make it to court, woman(70%) and men(30%),to have a legal representative with them in court.
It wasn't an overturn the verdict rally.

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

Flipper22

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The woman from the Rape Crisis centre spoke at the rally and asked for changes in the justice system for rape victims. She wants those victims who make it to court, woman(70%) and men(30%),to have a legal representative with them in court.
It wasn't an overturn the verdict rally.

The main reason for the rally was anger at the verdict, all the I believe her stuff

Ace2007

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I don't normally post on these threads but really?

You are accusing ALL (to use your emphasis!) men of shockingly poor behaviour?

Do I have to point out how totally, obscenely silly that statement actually is?

Jesus wept!

I was thinking that when I wrote it - but it's a certain % of men that is unquantifiable - that would speak in a way, or send text message/videos/pics etc. that posters think are unacceptable, like the exchanges we saw in the trial.

What % would you say - if I say it's the minority - most people probably won't agree -

If you say it's the majority - again most people wont' agree, so what % do you think it is.

Obv all is not correct , however if you want to change anything, you teach all how to behaviour and not a certain corhert of lads. It is not just rugby lads that have this type of banter.

ShowMeTheCash

foxyladyxx wrote: »

In a UK court?

The chant at one of these protests what "sue me now paddy"?
I have given up trying to make sense of it.

I think this protest or rally or whatever people want to call it now and been shown to be somewhat aimless so people are scrambling to give it a narrative that makes sense.

Half the people on this thread keep talking about change... Yet this happened in a different country.... So again it is bizarre!

_Whimsical_

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

No. A rape case is taken by the state. A rape victim is a witness in the state's case then. The legal team are not there to represent her/his rights or to retain her/his dignity or support the victim. They don't even prepare her/him for giving evidence. The only time a rape victim can bring in legal representation is if they are questioned about their sexual past previous to the rape. It is an unequal match. A defendant has full preparation and a team fighting their case, raising every point, presenting things from their clients point of view. The victim has no one doing that.

Ace2007

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

I wouldn't have thought so - she's wasn't on trial, and she didn't take the case against the 4 lads, so why would she have a lawyer?

The Talking Bread

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

no, it is a criminal trial. She would have had personal legal advice but the prosecution barrister represents, in simplistic terms, the PSNI (well moreso, the State)

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Cool, thanks for demonstrating that Hook did actually blame a women for her own rape.

So if I ask you "are you an idiot?"
You equate that I am calling you an idiot by asking the question...

I see :rolleyes:

emeraldwinter

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

No. A rape case is taken by the state. A rape victim is a witness in the state's case then. The legal team are not there to represent her/his rights or to retain her/his dignity or support the victim. They don't even prepare her/him for giving evidence. The only time a rape victim can bring in legal representation is if they are questioned about their sexual past previous to the rape. It is an unequal match. A defendant has full preparation and a team fighting their case, raising every point, presenting things from their clients point of view. The victim has no one doing that.

Ace2007 wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought so - she's wasn't on trial, and she didn't take the case against the 4 lads, so why would she have a lawyer?

The Talking Bread wrote: »

no, it is a criminal trial. She would have had personal legal advice but the prosecution barrister represents, in simplistic terms, the PSNI (well moreso, the State)

I understand that witnesses have no actually representation. How does it make sense to have representation in court for a witness ? Sorry if my post was confusing. She would have had legal advice and the PSNI took the case to court.

hill16bhoy

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So if I ask you "are you an idiot?"
You equate that I am calling you an idiot by asking the question...

I see :rolleyes:

"Idiot" is certainly the obvious word that comes to mind for anybody who has actually read Hook's comments and failed to see that he was blaming the woman for her own rape.

And that's without even mentioning his previous disgusting comments implying there is no such thing as spousal rape, which I guess I've now mentioned, actually.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

Rape culture suggests it is socially acceptable and the norm.

Nobody think rape is acceptable and is the norm but you keep beating that drum!

irishrebe

hill16bhoy wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So if I ask you "are you an idiot?"
You equate that I am calling you an idiot by asking the question...

I see :rolleyes:

"Idiot" is certainly the obvious word that comes to mind for anybody who has actually read Hook's comments and failed to see that he was blaming the woman for her own rape.

And that's without even mentioning his previous disgusting comments implying there is no such thing as spousal rape, which I guess I've now mentioned, actually.

Absolutely. His comments were disgraceful.

Appledreams15

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The chant at one of these protests what "sue me now paddy"?
I have given up trying to make sense of it.

I think this protest or rally or whatever people want to call it now and been shown to be somewhat aimless so people are scrambling to give it a narrative that makes sense.

Half the people on this thread keep talking about change... Yet this happened in a different country.... So again it is bizarre!

They play for Ireland.

Grimwar

Drink and be aware. Probably not for those involved. Alcohol involved 50/50

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

Rape culture suggests it is socially acceptable and the norm.

Nobody think rape is acceptable and is the norm but you keep beating that drum!

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

Appledreams15

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why the march to the department of justice today so?

Why don't you look at the Facebook event page organising the march, instead of asking on here?

GreeBo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

Same argument about the devil, Atlantis, etc etc.

It must be very handy to use lack of evidence as evidence to support your viewpoint.

hynesie08

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

What about when both parties are that impaired??

_Whimsical_

emeraldwinter wrote: »

I understand that witnesses have no actually representation. How does it make sense to have representation in court for a witness ? Sorry if my post was confusing. She would have had legal advice and the PSNI took the case to court.

It makes sense to have someone there to rebut allegations about your character which really should have no place in the proceedings, to consult with you so you don't feel like a piece of meat while the most traumatic intimate thing thats ever happened is argued about, to prepare you to fully put your side of events across, to ensure your perspective on what happened is represented accurately, or just so feel supported while your vagina, anus, penis is discussed in detail. That sort of thing.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

That's not how it works under the current Irish laws. They have to prove the accused had the knowledge of the given consent was not consent it's a very hard area to get your head around.

Omackeral

Bob_Marley wrote: »

You think binge drinking and getting into a very questionable drunken situation with a drunk teenage girl is a good idea for an athlete on the national Irish team ?

You’re loving that “phrase drunk teenage girl” as if it’s some prepubescent girl with a few bottles of wkd. It’s an adult woman.

emeraldwinter

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

It makes sense to have someone there to rebut allegations about your character which really should have no place in the proceedings, to consult with you so you don't feel like a piece of meat while the most traumatic intimate thing thats ever happened is argued about, to prepare you to fully put your side of events across, to ensure your perspective on what happened is represented accurately, or just so feel supported while your vagina, anus, penis is discussed in detail. That sort of thing.

Is that not what the prosecution is for ? Are we saying evidence should not be presented in open court ?

Ace2007

emeraldwinter wrote: »

I understand that witnesses have no actually representation. How does it make sense to have representation in court for a witness ? Sorry if my post was confusing. She would have had legal advice and the PSNI took the case to court.

Well like it's not really fair for a victim to have no representation or say prep talk about what will be said or who will say what etc. Unlike say those accused who have probably gone over a mock trial 100 times to makes sure they don't say the wrong thing.

I know there was a lot of talk about how she was put through 8 days on the stand where as the lads only had 1 day, but the flip side is that each lad had his own representation and so each barrister had the right to ask her questions. Imagine having no idea how it works and to be asked the same question 3/4 times but all slightly differently. PJ and the lads, where only asked by one barrister for instance What if say the victim had a barrister that could ask questions, and say one of the lads said something that was different from the first time he was asked it by the prosecution barrister.... to which more follow up questions can be asked.

Amalgam

The UK system is creaking under the avalanche of social media evidence. A case that really struck me was that of student Liam Allen.

A relative had to go off and download his Facebook message history and even then, the prosecution presented an 'edited' list of messages to paint a certain view of events.

The trial collapsed after the full history of messages was admitted to court, showing a totally different line of events.

I don't want anyone to have an easy time on the podium, male or female. Stand by your convictions and get through it.

Liam Allan: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42366629

Danny Kay: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405

The 'selective' disclosure of how social media messages are impacting on rape cases means that a few hundred are likely to be up for 'review' in the UK.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

"Idiot" is certainly the obvious word that comes to mind for anybody who has actually read Hook's comments and failed to see that he was blaming the woman for her own rape.

I read the whole thing, my comprehension of the English language appears to be somewhat better than yours.
There is what he said and what you think he meant.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Ace2007 wrote: »

I was thinking that when I wrote it - but it's a certain % of men that is unquantifiable - that would speak in a way, or send text message/videos/pics etc. that posters think are unacceptable, like the exchanges we saw in the trial.

What % would you say - if I say it's the minority - most people probably won't agree -

If you say it's the majority - again most people wont' agree, so what % do you think it is.

Obv all is not correct , however if you want to change anything, you teach all how to behaviour and not a certain corhert of lads. It is not just rugby lads that have this type of banter.

A minority at the most and a small minority at that. There is a huge difference between saying 'I'll do this or that' in a particular situation and the numbers who would actually carry out the act.

In all my years in four different sports and in all my associations with relatives, friends and team mates, I can honestly say the 'banter' I have heard from my wife and her friends and my own female friends is far, far more offensive than anything heard from male banter as regards the opposite sex.

To categorise all men's behaviour as requiring 'reeducation' is, frankly, offensive and sexist and reminiscent of 1984 by George Orwell.

Appledreams15

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The chant at one of these protests what "sue me now paddy"?
I have given up trying to make sense of it.

I think this protest or rally or whatever people want to call it now and been shown to be somewhat aimless so people are scrambling to give it a narrative that makes sense.

Half the people on this thread keep talking about change... Yet this happened in a different country.... So again it is bizarre!

Does anyone read anything before they post on here.

The headlines in all the front pages of the papers today :Paddy Jackson has threatened to sue anyone who refers to the case and defames him on social media.

This further inflamed things with
#suemepaddy becoming the number one trending hashtag on Twitter in Ireland today.

This is why people chanted it at the march today.

GreeBo

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well I suggested the first two earlier...

Not Proven may well be a red herring, thanks for engaging all the same..

The reason prime are not engaging is the lack of anything to engage.
The state goes to trial if they have a case.
The state secures a conviction if they have enough evidence to convince a jury.

That's what's required to increase conviction rates and that's why they are so low, because is bloody hard to achieve all that.

Wringing your hands is useless. You might as well go the whole hog, throw on a bikini & sash and say you want world peace.

irishrebe

hynesie08 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

What about when both parties are that impaired??

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape. 

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

That's not how it works under the current Irish laws. They have to prove the accused had the knowledge of the given consent was not consent it's a very hard area to get your head around.

That's how it works under UK law. It is difficult to prove though, yes. Like pretty much everything when it comes to rape cases.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote:

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape.

Of course. And that I assume seems fair to you?

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape. 

That's how it works under UK law. It is difficult to prove though, yes. Like pretty much everything when it comes to rape cases.

But the People marching in Dublin would mostly have been from the Republic what Irish laws do they want changed ? Could you possibly provide the UK information equivalent to our laws around rape ?

ShowMeTheCash

Appledreams15 wrote: »

They play for Ireland.

And? It is a rally or a protest? What is the goal of this rally/protest?

Ace2007

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

A minority at the most and a small minority at that. There is a huge difference between saying 'I'll do this or that' in a particular situation and the numbers who would actually carry out the act.

In all my years in four different sports and in all my associations with relatives, friends and team mates, I can honestly say the 'banter' I have heard from my wife and her friends and my own female friends is far, far more offensive than anything heard from male banter as regards the opposite sex.

To categorise all men's behaviour as requiring 'reeducation' is, frankly, offensive and sexist and reminiscent of 1984 by George Orwell.

I didn't say all men need re-education - what I said was that education should be given to all men, that way you don't miss out on anyone, I will now add women to that sentence. Your getting like some of the other posters in here -

Your saying that you witness the banter being worse by females including your wife? - Did you speak up about it, Did you text back and say you were uncomfortable with it, or did you like everyone else giggle at it - harmless fun, and move on?

_Whimsical_

Ace2007 wrote: »

Well like it's not really fair for a victim to have no representation or say prep talk about what will be said or who will say what etc. Unlike say those accused who have probably gone over a mock trial 100 times to makes sure they don't say the wrong thing.

I know there was a lot of talk about how she was put through 8 days on the stand where as the lads only had 1 day, but the flip side is that each lad had his own representation and so each barrister had the right to ask her questions. Imagine having no idea how it works and to be asked the same question 3/4 times but all slightly differently. PJ and the lads, where only asked by one barrister for instance What if say the victim had a barrister that could ask questions, and say one of the lads said something that was different from the first time he was asked it by the prosecution barrister.... to which more follow up questions can be asked.

I feel like the prosecution missed several points that I don't think legal representation for an individual would've left hanging.

Like why did McIlroy say he'd had sex with the girl in a police interview when she and everyone else present said he had not touched her, only exposed himself? That should easily tie in with the idea that the men met and concocted a story allocating themselves roles in a consentual act and McIlroy was confused as to his role.

Why did Dara, the girl witness, enter a bedroom where people were having sex? She had come looking for her friend who was upstairs. If she had heard normal sex noises would she really interrupt her friend having sex?
Sounds much more like she heard something that concerned her so she entered the bedroom far enough to see just who was having sex.

Why did she say she was 100% sure Paddy Jackson was having sex with the girl when Paddy Jackson claims that never happened. Th victim claimed it did.
Why was that evidence not made more of?

In my opinion there was more meat in the prosecution's evidence than was used to any good effect.

hill16bhoy

GreeBo wrote: »

Same argument about the devil, Atlantis, etc etc.

It must be very handy to use lack of evidence as evidence to support your viewpoint.

Oh but there's copious amounts of evidence all over this thread.

324 pages of it as I type, filled with rape culture denial.

"Hiding" in plain sight.

Appledreams15

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

And? It is a rally or a protest? What is the goal of this rally/protest?

Why didn't you look at the Facebook event page stating the aims?

Surely that is easy to do.

I am not repeating myself again on here

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

In cases where the women has been able to agree to sex it almost always has been deemed by the judge to be consensual regardless of how drunk they are.

In Wales a few years ago they tried to try an Irish guy for rape on the premise that drunken consent is not consent, that also failed.

Amalgam

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Oh but there's copious amounts of evidence all over this thread.

324 pages of it as I type, filled with rape culture denial.

"Hiding" in plain sight.

Yeah.. :rolleyes:

irishrebe

Deleted User wrote: »

irishrebe wrote:

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape.

Of course.   And that I assume seems fair to you?

Considering that it's extremely difficult to even bring a rape case to court even when the victim is completely legless and the accused stone cold sober, and of those rape cases which are brought to court, almost all of them end without a conviction, I'm not sure this is something that you should work yourself up over. As much as I'm sure you'd love to believe that men really got the short straw in life.

Omackeral

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am not repeating myself again on here

Why change the habit of a lifetime.

Men in Spain = good
Men in Ireland = bad
Ireland is like India
Etc etc etc

hill16bhoy

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course. And that I assume seems fair to you?

Biology can sometimes be unfair.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

Considering that it's extremely difficult to even bring a rape case to court even when the victim is completely legless and the accused stone cold sober, and of those rape cases which are brought to court, almost all of them end without a conviction, I'm not sure this is something that you should work yourself up over. As much as I'm sure you'd love to believe that men really got the short straw in life.

I would like a citation for that one please. Have you a source ? same for the rate of convictions.

Rodin

If a drunk woman can not be deemed to have capacity to give consent, how can Olding given the skinful he had had, be in any fit state to GAIN consent.

Or is it one rule for one....

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

In cases where the women has been able to agree to sex it almost always has been deemed by the judge to be consensual regardless of how drunk they are.

In Wales a few years ago they tried to try an Irish guy for rape on the premise that drunken consent is not consent, that also failed.

Like any rape case, it's a whole lot of 'he said', 'she said'. How can anyone ever totally prove consent wasn't given? Doesn't mean that a person who is drunk can legally give consent. As the law puts it, they do not have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Proving it, is of course, close to impossible.

Appledreams15

Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today.

The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex.

Common f#cking sense.

Do you want to have sex?
Yes or no.

irishrebe

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course.   And that I assume seems fair to you?

Biology can sometimes be unfair.

But only to men, of course!

Mrsmum

hynesie08 wrote: »

What about when both parties are that impaired??

If he was that impaired, I don't think he could perform the act, could he ? Then again I'm not a man, maybe you are able to have sex while blacked out ???