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

emeraldwinter

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

How would you verify that happened ? Or that consent was changed after events ?

irishrebe

Rodin wrote: »

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....

Well, the man has to be capable of getting and maintaining an erection for one thing. Not 'drunk woman', by the way, 'drunk person'. If one man penetrates another man, which one do you think has more chance of being accused of rape?

Ace2007

I also think one of the main things behind the marches is because of the banter of the text messages, a certain cohort of people in Irish society don't want the 2 lads going back to Ulster or playing with Ireland, and so the longer and the louder the rallies become the less chance Ulster will let them play again and no other team in Ireland will touch them, which is turns means they will not play for Ireland due to that stupid IRFU imposed rule, about having to play in Ireland if you want to represent your country.

hill16bhoy

Rodin wrote: »

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....

Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum.

The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel.

I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.

emeraldwinter

Ace2007 wrote: »

I also think one of the main things behind the marches is because of the banter of the text messages, a certain cohort of people in Irish society don't want the 2 lads going back to Ulster or playing with Ireland, and so the longer and the louder the rallies become the less chance Ulster will let them play again and no other team in Ireland will touch them, which is turns means they will not play for Ireland due to that stupid IRFU imposed rule, about having to play in Ireland if you want to represent your country.

I wonder if it registers with them that would be Discrimination ?

The Wordress

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

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.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

In Dara Florence's evidence, she said she opened the door to the bedroom and saw them having sex for less than a minute.

I'm sorry but if I knew someone was in a bedroom having sex, I would immediately close the door unless I knew that one of them was in distress of some sort.

I think it would be pure creepy if someone looked for that long at me having sex.

All defendants also claim that they didn't know Dara Florence prior to the night the girl was allegedly raped.

I also find this hard to believe and I think there was collusion here too.

The only impartial person in the whole trial was the Taxi driver and I think his evidence said it all.

irishrebe

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.

If two drunk people willingly have sex are you saying that it is technically rape as the woman can't consent?

Owryan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

How long before "i only said yes cause i was afraid of him"

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

There is no legal definition to "drunk" so what you are suggesting is not legally in-forcible.

GreeBo

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.

Lack of evidence is your problem.

Care to show some that indicates that our society is one where rape is considered normal and is tolerated?

Perhaps you are posting from some part of India or the middle East?

emeraldwinter

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There is no legal definition to "drunk" so what you are suggesting is not legally in-forcible.

Pretty sure in the Irish legislation that was toughened up level of inebriation can change how consent is looked at but on a case by case basis. Again in the Irish law you have to prove the man knew the consent was not real and continued.

Rodin

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum.

The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel.

I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.

Sure what men hasn't been sexually assaulted?
Had my arse grabbed loads of times, particularly when doing security.
The women who come in at 8pm are not the same at 3am.
Infinitely worse to deal with than the lads.

Ace2007

emeraldwinter wrote: »

I wonder if it registers with them that would be Discrimination ?

who knows, but being honest, I don't see PJ playing for ulster/Ireland again - the whole suing people is just keeping the issue going on longer and longer which is not good. He may know this already and hence is suing as he has a hefty bill to pay for his legal team.

GreeBo

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

Do you currently get a verbal yes from every man you have sex with? If not, why not? Apparently it's only common sense.

Anyway, if the sex is any good there will be plenty of "yes"'s forthcoming.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Ace2007 wrote: »

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?

You accept it for what it is, banter. You mightn't like it but the vast majority is bravado. Why would I take my wife's friend saying 'I'd ride you backwards' as anything other than bravado? Especially as my wife was present in the conversation.

Thanks for adding women to your earlier comment on reeducation but the whole notion of vast swathes of the population needing reeducation still echoes a totalitarian mentality that I would have assumed extinct since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently I was wrong...

hynesie08

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

Not today though, over a week ago, your international news sharing friends are slacking.....

And as asked how long before someone claims the yes was under duress.

hynesie08

Mrsmum wrote: »

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 ???

Yeah, most lads I know would be able to start, it's the finishing that's usually the issue. Everybody's different though.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum.

The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel.

I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.

Are you being serious?
For a start if that happened there would not even be a trail.

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

There is no legal definition to "drunk" so what you are suggesting is not legally in-forcible.

No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.

GreeBo

Owryan wrote: »

How long before "i only said yes cause i was afraid of him"

It's a pointless law change anyway, probably trying to avoid a march by the purple haired brigade.

It's all still he said/she said, unless you are getting it on film.

Hmm, maybe porn is onto something after all...

degsie

GreeBo wrote: »

Lack of evidence is your problem.

Care to show some that indicates that our society is one where rape is considered normal and is tolerated?

Perhaps you are posting from some part of India or the middle East?

I detect a hint xenophobia in that comment.

Silentcorner

GreeBo wrote: »

I propose no trials without substantial evidence.

What do you suggest will increase conviction rates? Jail more men?

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

Curly Judge

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

A good, but perhaps unromantic, suggestion.
It still leaves uncertainty out there though, as either side can lie about it afterward and we are back to square one.
Tape recordings and signed copies anyone?

Ace2007

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You accept it for what it is, banter. You mightn't like it but the vast majority is bravado. Why would I take my wife's friend saying 'I'd ride you backwards' as anything other than bravado? Especially as my wife was present in the conversation.

Thanks for adding women to your earlier comment on reeducation but the whole notion of vast swathes of the population needing reeducation still echoes a totalitarian mentality that I would have assumed extinct since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently I was wrong...

Ok, so how would you go about changing the way a "small minority" of males and females speak about the opposite sex. Considering you view it as "Bravado" among friends and don't speak up?

The way I suggested is you included everyone that way you don't miss anyone, but yet you seem offended?

I'm giving you a possible solution whereas you are trying to deny a problem exists and won't provide an alternative solution?

_Dara_

GreeBo wrote: »

These 4 men were brought to justice also, yet we have these lunatic protests.
You do know that justice doesn't mean imprison men without evidence...right?

Greebo, read my posts. I DON’T agree with these protests and I AGREED with the verdict. I made a heavily-thanked post on the first page of this thread that says so.

The post you quoted there was me addressing the whataboutery of people bringing up Muslim gangs in the UK and why people aren’t protesting that. I don’t agree with these protests but whataboutery like that is moronic.

You know how to read threads, right?

emeraldwinter

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

Where is this coming from ? Figures, Or is it it's not reported but actually reported but not taken to the police ?

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum.

The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel.

I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.

Are you being serious?
For a start if that happened there would not even be a trail.

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.

Point me to the legal definition of "drunk" in the statue book.
Is it drunk or extremely drunk?
Where is the bar here? Is a little drunk ok???

irishrebe

Curly Judge wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

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.

A good, but perhaps unromantic, suggestion.
It still leaves uncertainty out there though, as either side can lie about it afterward and we are back to square one.
Tape recordings and signed copies anyone?

I think it will end up going that way, honestly. Almost everyone has a voice recorder on their smartphone now.  And I'm sure when this becomes a requirement, the 'hysterical looney left wing green haired nutters' will be blamed, and not the small minority of people who don't understand the concept of boundaries or consent.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

I'm confused who thinks sexual assault is ok ? Why is there this men vs women. If sexual assault happens people go to jail.

Curly Judge

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

Unsubstantiated BS!
There may be a 100 girls who wake up the next morning and decide, retrospectively, that they have been raped.
Hardly the same thing?

salmocab

I've had an idea for an app, 'i consent' I am going to be a millionaire. basically the phones can connect via blue tooth then in the heat of passion the couple can create a password together and also sign off on a safe word.

ShowMeTheCash

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

A good chance?

Of the reported rape cases what % of them do you think are not rape?

degsie

irishrebe wrote: »

I think it will end up going that way, honestly. Almost everyone has a voice recorder on their smartphone now.  And I'm sure when this becomes a requirement, the 'hysterical looney left wing green haired nutters' will be blamed, and not the small minority of people who don't understand the concept of boundaries or consent.

Time for a 'consent' app?

degsie

degsie wrote:

Time for a 'consent' app?

I was hacked....

I was going to withdraw my consent half way through but I was out of coverage...

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.

Point me to the legal definition of "drunk" in the statue book.
Is it drunk or extremely drunk?
Where is the bar here? Is a little drunk ok???

So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.

[font=Georgia, serif]A person is “drunk” when he is so far under the Influence of liquor that his passions are visibly excited or his judgment impaired, or when his brain is so far affected by potations of liquor that his intelligence. sense-perceptions, judgment, continuity of thought or of ideas, speech, and co-ordination of volition with muscular action(or some of these faculties or processes) are impaired or not under normal control.State v. Pierce. 65 Iowa. 85. 21 N. W. 195; Elkin v. Buschner (Pa.) 16 Atl. 104; Sapp v.State, 116 Ga. 1S2, 42 S. E. 411; Ring v. Ring, 112 Ga. 854, 38 S. E. 330; State v.Savage, 89 Ala. 1, 7 South. 183, 7 L. R. A. 426; Lewis r. Jones, 50 Barb. (N. T.) 667.[/font]

Mrsmum

I think it is a pity that people seem to view looking for consent numerous times while having sex as suspicious or a chore when they should see it as enhancing the experience and a normal part of the sexual dance. It almost seems like peoples' sexual experience is so poor and lacking any communication that they may as well just be pumping a blown up doll.

irishrebe

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

I'm confused who thinks sexual assault is ok ? Why is there this men vs women. If sexual assault happens people go to jail.

Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?

Rodin

irishrebe wrote: »

So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.

That definition only appears to cover men. And Americans.

_Dara_

irishrebe wrote: »

Of course it is. There are always saps around. Idiots like that don't represent all women any more than misogynist trolls speak for all men.

Well, you know, that person was still at the protest, waving that moronic banner. It’s a public act and people will comment on it.

As for us not all being a hive mind - I agree. But there has been a LOT of speaking of behalf of ALL women by many #IBelieveHer commentators across social media in the last few days. In that context, a banner that tars all men is problematic.

Strazdas

A bit of actual news among all the debate. Tomorrow's Irish Mail on Sunday reports that Ulster and Ireland winger Craig Gilroy was the person who sent the "Any sluts get f***ed?" text message to Stuart Olding.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?

Are you saying the cases that fail to lead to a conviction are wrong ?

irishrebe

Rodin wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.

That definition only appears to cover men.

Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it?

irishrebe

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?

Are you saying the cases that fail to lead to a conviction are wrong ?

I'm saying you have to be seriously thick to believe that all cases of sexual assault (or any crime, really) lead to convictions.

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

You have literally lost you mind! As has the other OP.

You main issue is you think these guys are guilty and should of been found guilty as this is the narrative you are taking.

But lets take this narrative, so if this was a gay man who has went back with 4 gay rugby players are you suggesting that men would have more sympathy for a guy saying he was raped than a woman?

Rodin

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it?

I don't recall saying anything was women's fault so your use of the word 'also' is null and void.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it?

Really how did that work with languages that mescaline and feminine.

Rodin

irishrebe wrote: »

I'm saying you have to be seriously thick to believe that all cases of sexual assault (or any crime, really) lead to convictions.

No conviction? No crime.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

I'm saying you have to be seriously thick to believe that all cases of sexual assault (or any crime, really) lead to convictions.

OK, So in the last year could you give us a number of Trails that have not come to the right conclusion ? Why even have courts ?

hill16bhoy

GreeBo wrote: »

Lack of evidence is your problem.

Care to show some that indicates that our society is one where rape is considered normal and is tolerated?

Perhaps you are posting from some part of India or the middle East?

Yeah, the Hill 16 in my name is a reference to a hill just outside Bangalore rather than a terrace in Croke Park.

Another poster sort of made the point for me.

Things that do constitute rape are tolerated because those that tolerate them are so bloody ignorant that they don't even know what rape is.

Much of men's everyday sexual terminology is violent. "I destroyed her, I ploughed her, smashed her, pumped her".

The use of the word "bitch" or "bitches" or "sluts".

The use of animals to symbolise women. A pig on a spit as a symbol for what the defendants in the Belfast trail were doing. "Dog" and "cow" are regularised terms men use.

The notion that sex is something to be inflicted on a woman by a man.

The notion that it's fine to continually pester a woman who doesn't want your attention in the hope that she will "put out".

The notion that if a woman doesn't scream or fight, it can't be rape. Wrong.

The notion that if a woman asks their attacker in desperation to "at least use a condom", that amounts to consent. Wrong.

The notion that if a woman consents to kissing that that amounts to consent to sex. Wrong.

The deliberately mendacious assertions after this trial that the woman was "lying" and the disgusting, boorish clamour to publicly out her.

The constant belittling of women (and men) who felt the need to protest.

All of this and far more I haven't mentioned represents rape culture.

I know this because when I was my late teens and 20s I sadly laboured under quite a few of the misapprehensions and ignorant beliefs that I've just mentioned.