Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We live in the real world though and sex is never going to be so formal, that's the reality of the situation and no amount of trying to get people to have such conversations before they engage in sex will ever make them commonplace.



Because it's never proposed for the right reasons by the right people. It tends to be proposed by those with an agenda, who just want to control how men and women interact. Their motives are not pure.

Besides, a female witness said that Dara looked as if she was consenting with what went on. Why is her word not good enough?

LOL, you don't think people discuss things like threesome? Of course they do. It doesn't have to be a formal sit down negotiation, like people who seem to have no idea how to discuss consent want to make it seem.

But you're absolutely wrong about people discussing things like threesomes. Swingers and people into polyamory, take consent really seriously.

You personally might think it's unimaginable to check that everyone consents to doing things, but loads of people do it verbally e.g. "I'd love to do such and such to your whatever" (to paraphrase a line from Alan Partridge).

But you're right in thinking that lots of people don't check that their partner consents. I presume some people do t want the partner to think about what they're doing so they don't say they want to stop and they won't get the ride.

I any case PJ followed your prescribed method of not discussing it and instead presume consent unless the partner explicitly asks to stop. And everyone was drunk so perception was not as sharp as usual and they ended up accused of rape. And still you stick by your method even after what had been a horrible few years for everyone involved in the situation.

The reason I'd advocate for actually discussing consent rather than just ploughing on is because I care about the people involved. I don't presume PJ is a bad lad. But I think that through the ignorance of Presuming Consent, he was involved in causing a lot of hurt to the woman and to himself in loads of ways and his career through the whole thing.

What they did wasn't proved to be technically rape as the law views it. And the law didn't try to determine if the wan was genuinely hurt by the situation. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to control anyone and I'm not in a position to control them anyway. I stand by my assertion that everyone involved would be much happier if they had known how to have a really simple consent chat.

El_Duderino 09

dickangel wrote: »

There was also the story you told where you witnessed guys tagging in and out on a drunk girl without her knowing the person she was sleeping with was changing. It wasn't your job to police people's sex lives then either. Better to lecture others about consent on the Internet though, much easier that actually intervening in a crime.

That's right as far as I knew she didn't know what was going on and as I said, It's not my job to police other people's sex lives so it wasn't my job to police their sex lives either.

It's funny because someone else has accused me of trying to control other people and I'm demonstrating the precise opposite.

They were both instances where people's understandings of consent were pretty wrong and could have caused a lot of hurt to everyone involved. Pretty consistent with what I'm saying about the PJ case. So what's your point?

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Because it's never proposed for the right reasons by the right people. It tends to be proposed by those with an agenda, who just want to control how men and women interact. Their motives are not pure.

What would be the "pure" motives that you would consider the right reasons for promoting discussing consent?

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

LOL, you don't think people discuss things like threesome? Of course they do. It doesn't have to be a formal sit down negotiation, like people who seem to have no idea how to discuss consent want to make it seem.

Not sure what you're laughing at.

Yes, people can discuss such things, but generally threesomes which occur between drunk people that have just met, don't have 'Okay, are you sure this is okay?' type discussions. Generally they just happen and consent is conveyed and inferred by what is happening.

But you're absolutely wrong about people discussing things like threesomes. Swingers and people into polyamory, take consent really seriously.

Swingers groups have regimented rules quite often and good for them. Indeed, many go to them for that reason. Far different to folk who are drinking and having group sex at parties. Consent in this context is generally conveyed by what people are doing and how someone is responding to what they're doing. Start asking is this okay and is that okay and you'd more likely turn people off than anything else.

You personally might think it's unimaginable to check that everyone consents to doing things, but loads of people do it verbally e.g. "I'd love to do such and such to your whatever" (to paraphrase a line from Alan Partridge).

Partridge is a good example as what he is lampooning with that is those who are nervous around the opposite sex, which is exactly how blokes in general would be perceived, nine times out of ten, if they started asking is this okay and is that okay.

But you're right in thinking that lots of people don't check that their partner consents. I presume some people do t want the partner to think about what they're doing so they don't say they want to stop and they won't get the ride.

Oh ffs. Now people who don't verbally ask is x, y and z okay, are really just worried they'll be told no, as if the only way someone could not have sex is if they've been verbally asked first. People can say no to sex without being verbally asked if they want to have sex or not you know. It's not: 'Oh sh*t, I wasn't verbally asked, now nothing I can do to convey I don't want to have sex, damn!'

The reason I'd advocate for actually discussing consent rather than just ploughing on is because I care about the people involved.

You're not listening, bit odd for someone who is putting themselves forward as an authority on communication. Not verbally asking someone do they want x, y or z does not mean that they have not been 1) given consent in another way and 2) that they can't say no to sex despite not being verbally asked. You appear to not understand this.

I don't presume PJ is a bad lad. But I think that through the ignorance of Presuming Consent, he was involved in causing a lot of hurt to the woman and to himself in loads of ways and his career through the whole thing.

You're suggesting, again, that he wasn't given consent, but the evidence says he was.

I stand by my assertion that everyone involved would be much happier if they had known how to have a really simple consent chat.

Why would he ask her if she wanted a threesome when it was obvious that she did?

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not sure what you're laughing at.

Yes, people can discuss such things, but generally threesomes which occur between drunk people that have just met, don't have 'Okay, are you sure this is okay?' type discussions. Generally they just happen and consent is conveyed and inferred by what is happening.



Swingers groups have regimented rules quite often and good for them. Indeed, many go to them for that reason. Far different to folk who are drinking and having group sex at parties. Consent in this context is generally conveyed by what people are doing and how someone is responding to what they're doing. Start asking is this okay and is that okay and you'd more likely turn people off than anything else.


Oh ffs. Now people who don't verbally ask is x, y and z okay, are really just worried they'll be told no as if the only way someone could not have sex is if they've been verbally asked first. People can say no to sex without being verbally asked if they want to have sex or not you know. It's not: 'Oh sh*t, I wasn't verbally asked, now nothing I can do to convey I don't want to have sex, damn!'



You're not listening, bit odd for someone who is putting themselves forward as an authority on communication. Not verbally asking someone do they want x, y or z does not mean that they have not been 1) given consent in another way and 2) that they can't say no to sex despite not being verbally asked. You appear to not understand this.



You're suggesting, again, that he wasn't given consent, but the evidence says he was.



Why would he ask her if she wanted a threesome when it was obvious that she did?

The bit in bold is amusing. I suspect that there's a great chance that if PJ had asked the woman if she was on for a threesome, she would have thought about it and said "no". And the whole situation would have been solved. I dread he presumes he had consent and we know how it turned out.

I think you're right that more people would say "no" if explicitly asked if they consent. That's not a bad thing if they don't consent and are going to feel exploited later on.

Your last point is genuinely baffling. They had to go to court and have their lives laid out in public, to establish whether a rape occurred. Only a fool would prefer that outcome to asking if they wanted a threesome and risking the answer being a "no".

Shefwedfan

I have missed a few pages


So someone fill me in, did he do it?

anewme

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I have missed a few pages


So someone fill me in, did he do it?

Play? I doubt it.

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The bit in bold is amusing. I suspect that there's a great chance that if PJ had asked the woman if she was on for a threesome, she would have thought about it and said "no". And the whole situation would have been solved. I dread he presumes he had consent and we know how it turned out.

Well, if she doesn't want to have sex with people, she shouldn't have sex with people. Why are you putting it on Paddy to verbally ask? Where's her responsibility in all this?

I think you're right that more people would say "no" if explicitly asked if they consent. That's not a bad thing if they don't consent and are going to feel exploited later on.

You think I'm right about something I didn't say? Interesting.

Your last point is genuinely baffling. They had to go to court and have their lives laid out in public, to establish whether a rape occurred. Only a fool would prefer that outcome to asking if they wanted a threesome and risking the answer being a "no".

Your naive view is that had the woman been asked questions about consent then none of this would have happened. Silly silly boys.

Jackson said the woman was performing oral sex on him, Olding walked in, she immediately put her hands out for him to come over and when he did, began performing oral on him also. You really think a question would be needed in a situation like that? Generally speaking I mean.

Some debate about what went on the bed, but whatever it was, Dara says the woman didn't appear distressed. If she was, could she not have called out to one of the girls when they opened the door? Prioritizing not having your photo taken over stopping men from raping you seems a little odd, no?

The woman says that McIlroy then walked in and clearly wanted to 'rape' her too but that she thought "this is not happening again" jumped up, grabbed her clothes and said: "How many times does it take for a girl to say no for it to sink in?" and left.

Now, don't you think it's strange that she was suddenly capable of jumping up and verbally saying no to McIlroy, but yet couldn't do this with Paddy and Olding somehow? Does that not sound weird to you?

Isn't it true that all the evidence points to the woman consenting to all that went on with Paddy and Olding in that room but was (understably) upset because she started to bleed and used McIlroy wanting to join in as the perfect chance to scarper?

Beasty

Kidchameleon banned for repeatedly breaching forum rules/overstepping the mark. Please do not continue discussion of their earlier post

Any questions PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

Thanks

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, if she doesn't want to have sex with people, she shouldn't have sex with people. Why are you putting it on Paddy to verbally ask? Where's her responsibility in all this?



You think I'm right about something I didn't say? Interesting.



Your naive view is that had the woman been asked questions about consent then none of this would have happened. Silly silly boys.

The woman has equal responsible in this. That's why I think they should discuss consent. Reality is that in Irish law only a man can commit a rape (something I oppose).

I think there should be broader discussion of the nature of consent. I think it should be a part of the ongoing discussion of sex, sexuality, relationships etc, from childhood, as appropriate.

Outlaw Pete

You're avoiding the questions I put to do as I think you know that answering them means you would have to accept that ambiguity about consent was not an issue here.

She was well able to assert herself to one man, but funny not the other two.

Yeah right. The jury reached the correct verdict, now let the men get on with their lives.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're avoiding the questions I put to do as I think you know that answering them means you would have to accept that ambiguity about consent was not an issue here.

She was well able to assert herself to one man, but funny not the other two.

Yeah right. The jury reached the correct verdict, now let the men get on with their lives.

Oh about all the "he said she said form" the trial. I just don't treat it as gospel. After the legal experts earn their money, the truth take is not a big concern. I wasn't there and I don't believe something just because someone said it in court. So I have no clue about the details of what went on at the time.

I know that puts me at a disadvantage to all the people who pretend to know exactly what happened. But I'm just being honest. I don't know and I don't consider what people said under legal advice, as a faithful representation of what actually happened in reality.

I don't know how consent was given or gained and if you're honest, you'll admit you don't know either.

El_Duderino 09

It's gone very quiet since the poster with all the alter egos got kicked out.

I get to a few Newcastle Falcons matches every year when I'm there. I was hoping to see PJ and Sean O Brien play for London Irish, Declan Kidney as coach. But Falcons got relegated so I'll have to wait til next year and see if they can get back to the Premiership

Outlaw Pete

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh about all the "he said she said form" the trial. I just don't treat it as gospel. After the legal experts earn their money, the truth take is not a big concern. I wasn't there and I don't believe something just because someone said it in court. So I have no clue about the details of what went on at the time.

I know that puts me at a disadvantage to all the people who pretend to know exactly what happened. But I'm just being honest. I don't know and I don't consider what people said under legal advice, as a faithful representation of what actually happened in reality.

I don't know how consent was given or gained and if you're honest, you'll admit you don't know either.

You're very selective about what you want to accept happened and what you don't.

For example, you're happy to accept that the woman didn't consent (that's the basis for everything you're saying in fact) and your gracious enough to add that you are happy to believe that Paddy didn't mean to rape anyone and indeed that both men believed she was consenting (hence your assertion that what would have solved it all was a little chat about what everyone wanted).

Now, any chance you could stop swerving questions put to you?

1) Woman is performing oral sex on a guy and another guy walks in, they laugh and the woman reaches out her hand for the other guy to come over. He does and she starts preforming oral on him also. Now, generally speaking, is a conversation really needed at this point? Do words really need to be exchanged with regards to if all concerned are consenting? Can it not be simply inferred by everyone there that the other two are consenting to what's taking place? I sure think so.

2) Whilst on the bed and claiming she wasn't consenting to what was happening with her, Paddy and Olding (and therefore was being raped) Dara opens the door... and her immediate thought is 'Crap, she might take a pic' and so turns away. Don't you think that's odd, for someone who feels they are being raped to prioritize avoiding having their photo taken over alerting others to the fact they are being raped?

3) Again, the woman had no issue asserting herself to McIlroy, rejected him in no uncertain terms, which begs the question 'Why not do similar to Paddy and Olding?

You see, the truth is obvious, and her testimony (particularly the tone of it) made it very clear. Such as speaking in the third person during much of it and using right on soundbytes. This woman believed she was "raped" alright, but only with regards to the new 'progressive' definition of the word that's been pedaled this last decade by certain people, that if expressed verbal consent is not sought, and ultimately then given, that's rape. Well, it's not.

JMMCapital

No, he was found innocent in court and is entitled to make a living. 87.04%

Nuff said.

Huntergonzo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're very selective about what you want to accept happened and what you don't.

For example, you're happy to accept that the woman didn't consent (that's the basis for everything you're saying in fact) and your gracious enough to add that you are happy to believe that Paddy didn't mean to rape anyone and indeed that both men believed she was consenting (hence your assertion that what would have solved it all was a little chat about what everyone wanted).

Now, any chance you could stop swerving questions put to you?

1) Woman is performing oral sex on a guy and another guy walks in, they laugh and the woman reaches out her hand for the other guy to come over. He does and she starts preforming oral on him also. Now, generally speaking, is a conversation really needed at this point? Do words really need to be exchanged with regards to if all concerned are consenting? Can it not be simply inferred by everyone there that the other two are consenting to what's taking place? I sure think so.

2) Whilst on the bed and claiming she wasn't consenting to what was happening with her, Paddy and Olding and therefore was being raped... Dara opens the door... and her immediate thought is 'Crap, she might take a pic' and so turns away. Don't you think that's odd, for someone who feels they are being raped to prioritize avoiding having their photo taken over alerting others to the fact they are being raped?

3) Again, the woman had no issue asserting herself to McIlroy, rejected him in no uncertain terms, which begs the question 'Why not do similar to Paddy and Olding?

You see, the truth is obvious, and her testimony (particularly the tone of it) made it very clear. Such as speaking in the third person during much of it and using right on soundbytes. This woman believed she was "raped" alright, but only with regards to the new 'progressive' definition of the word that's been pedaled this last decade by certain people, that if expressed verbal consent is not sought, and ultimately then given, that's rape. Well, it's not.

Ye the fanatics want to keep moving the goalposts and muddying up the consent waters to try and get more convictions.

It's getting to the point where if you're a single man out on the pull (public enemy no.1 for new wave feminists), it'd be safer to sit down at a table and hammer out a deal with a lady, signed by both parties in the presence of a neutral witness.

Not especially romantic or sexually exciting but a safer option.

Faugheen

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh about all the "he said she said form" the trial. I just don't treat it as gospel. After the legal experts earn their money, the truth take is not a big concern. I wasn't there and I don't believe something just because someone said it in court. So I have no clue about the details of what went on at the time.

I know that puts me at a disadvantage to all the people who pretend to know exactly what happened. But I'm just being honest. I don't know and I don't consider what people said under legal advice, as a faithful representation of what actually happened in reality.

I don't know how consent was given or gained and if you're honest, you'll admit you don't know either.

You're very selective about what you want to accept happened and what you don't.

For example, you're happy to accept that the woman didn't consent (that's the basis for everything you're saying in fact) and your gracious enough to add that you are happy to believe that Paddy didn't mean to rape anyone and indeed that both men believed she was consenting (hence your assertion that what would have solved it all was a little chat about what everyone wanted).

Now, any chance you could stop swerving questions put to you?

1) Woman is performing oral sex on a guy and another guy walks in, they laugh and the woman reaches out her hand for the other guy to come over. He does and she starts preforming oral on him also. Now, generally speaking, is a conversation really needed at this point? Do words really need to be exchanged with regards to if all concerned are consenting? Can it not be simply inferred by everyone there that the other two are consenting to what's taking place? I sure think so.

2) Whilst on the bed and claiming she wasn't consenting to what was happening with her, Paddy and Olding (and therefore was being raped) Dara opens the door... and her immediate thought is 'Crap, she might take a pic' and so turns away. Don't you think that's odd, for someone who feels they are being raped to prioritize avoiding having their photo taken over alerting others to the fact they are being raped?

3) Again, the woman had no issue asserting herself to McIlroy, rejected him in no uncertain terms, which begs the question 'Why not do similar to Paddy and Olding?

You see, the truth is obvious, and her testimony (particularly the tone of it) made it very clear. Such as speaking in the third person during much of it and using right on soundbytes. This woman believed she was "raped" alright, but only with regards to the new 'progressive' definition of the word that's been pedaled this last decade by certain people, that if expressed verbal consent is not sought, and ultimately then given, that's rape. Well, it's not.

You see you’re now selecting what you think is true from her statements.

You believe she rejected McIlroy (despite him saying otherwise) but not what she said about Jackson and Olding?

I don’t think the consent line is a bad one. There’s clear discrepancies from what she says, to what Jackson/Olding said, what McIlroy says and what Dara Florence says (to both the complainant and Jackson).

This idea that someone should behave a certain way when being raped is nonsense. “Why didn’t she ask for help? Why didn’t she bite it off?” Nobody on this board knows how someone would behave if they are being raped, indeed nobody knows how it would be if we were in her alleged position.

There’s a lot of people talking in definites and in facts here when they have absolutely no idea whatsoever what happened. My personal opinion (opinion, not fact) is she felt she was raped, but there was no indication to either Jackson or Olding that she was unhappy with what happened, and this only became clear to them after the fact (hence Olding’s statement), so there were lines of consent that weren’t addressed, and Jackson himself said he had presumed consent.

I’m any case, there’s no way you could have found them guilty.

Jackson’s entitled to get on with his life, of course, but people are also entitled to speak out against him and his behaviour. It was the statement outside court that has completely done him in. After Olding’s sincere one, Jackson just went on the attack, threw thinly-veiled threats to the IRFU and felt like he was entitled to everything as if he hadn’t behaved so poorly. That one is on him.

Personally, I wouldn’t be one to go out and protest but this is what he faces now whenever there’s a chance of him coming back to Ireland, and it’s all his own doing.

Did the protest go ahead?

hetuzozaho

What kind of money are these guys on?

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're very selective about what you want to accept happened and what you don't.

For example, you're happy to accept that the woman didn't consent (that's the basis for everything you're saying in fact) and your gracious enough to add that you are happy to believe that Paddy didn't mean to rape anyone and indeed that both men believed she was consenting (hence your assertion that what would have solved it all was a little chat about what everyone wanted).

Now, any chance you could stop swerving questions put to you?

1) Woman is performing oral sex on a guy and another guy walks in, they laugh and the woman reaches out her hand for the other guy to come over. He does and she starts preforming oral on him also. Now, generally speaking, is a conversation really needed at this point? Do words really need to be exchanged with regards to if all concerned are consenting? Can it not be simply inferred by everyone there that the other two are consenting to what's taking place? I sure think so.

2) Whilst on the bed and claiming she wasn't consenting to what was happening with her, Paddy and Olding (and therefore was being raped) Dara opens the door... and her immediate thought is 'Crap, she might take a pic' and so turns away. Don't you think that's odd, for someone who feels they are being raped to prioritize avoiding having their photo taken over alerting others to the fact they are being raped?

3) Again, the woman had no issue asserting herself to McIlroy, rejected him in no uncertain terms, which begs the question 'Why not do similar to Paddy and Olding?

You see, the truth is obvious, and her testimony (particularly the tone of it) made it very clear. Such as speaking in the third person during much of it and using right on soundbytes. This woman believed she was "raped" alright, but only with regards to the new 'progressive' definition of the word that's been pedaled this last decade by certain people, that if expressed verbal consent is not sought, and ultimately then given, that's rape. Well, it's not.

Yeah. I just told you I don't trust the "he said, she said", and you respond with questions based on "he said, she said". And you're even reading into the tone in which they said things in court.

But I'll correct you on one point; I don't think she was raped because I don't know what happened. I think she thinks she was raped - hence bringing the case against the lads.

On your point 1, apart from the he said, she said, I'll say you could read the subtleties of non verbal cues. Non verbal cues are notoriously open to misunderstood at the best of times, but when everyone's drunk, I'd say it's a bit of a mess. And we know that the result was a massive misunderstanding and a horribly public court case with lots of collateral damage.

And still you mock the idea of simply checking about consent. As if PJ's experience of the last few years is not a big deal. You'd be doing young people a massive disservice by telling them it's stupid to check consent.

El_Duderino 09

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What kind of money are these guys on?

Hard to know. The market value of a player is one thing. But the other impacts of marketing the player is another factor. London Irish lost its long running sponsorship by Guinness because of PJ. It's possible he's asking for below the market value, to keep playing top tier rugby.

In any case, I don't really want to know what they earn. Earnings info a person is entitled to keep private

hetuzozaho

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What kind of money are these guys on?

Leinster and Ireland flanker will join English club after World Cup in November. Seán O'Brien has agreed to join London Irish following this year's Rugby World Cup in Japan, on a three-year contract reported to be worth €420,000 per annum.

Sean O'Brien has moved to the same team and that's his alleged salary. Sean O'Brien was once one of the best players in the world in his position though, so that salary is the highest echelon. I imagine Paddy Jackson is on a fraction of that given how toxic his brand is.

Although given Jackson's initial trajectory before the trial, he could have reached such heights. He was a very promising player by all accounts. He would have been close to pushing Sexton for a starting spot in the alternate universe where none of this happened. London Irish are getting a bargain if they can put up with the bad press and loss of sponsorship.

El_Duderino 09

Faugheen wrote: »

There’s a lot of people talking in definites and in facts here when they have absolutely no idea whatsoever what happened. My personal opinion (opinion, not fact) is she felt she was raped, but there was no indication to either Jackson or Olding that she was unhappy with what happened, and this only became clear to them after the fact (hence Olding’s statement), so there were lines of consent that weren’t addressed, and Jackson himself said he had presumed consent.

This is it. I would think this is what happened too (also opinion, not fact) is that nobody chatted about consent and they drunkenly sent, received and interpreted non-verbal cues about consent. The whole thing led to a big misunderstanding and the court case and all the other harm resulted.

There seem to be a couple of things going on. One being something along the lines of "shur, you can't expect people to ask for consent when drunk". As if being drunk changes things. I know people make a lot more mistakes when drunk, but that rarely counts as an excuse.

And the second thing is that any mention of consent might reduce your chances of getting the ride. There are 2 main possibilities: 1 the person is completely turned off by being asked if they're happy to have sex and,
2. the person thinks about it and decides they actually don't want to have sex and decide not to have sex.

The first case is pretty unlikely but possible. The second case is probably a bit more likely. But I would prefer to only have sex with people who actually want to have sex with me.

This mocking attitude to consent is prevalent. Unfortunate the aversion to any kind of chat about consent is probably what lead to the whole PJ case. Everyone involved might have a very different life today if they had the knowledge and experience to simply check consent on the night in question.

It's a real pity for everyone involved in that case and it's very sad to see people today, mock the discussion of consent.

Galwayguy35

The only people who know for sure what happened that night are the people who were in the room, you can't convict a man of rape just because you think he is guilty despite what the rad fems might like to see happpen.

LoughNeagh2017

I would protest just out of jealousy of the lifestyle he gets to live being a handsome fit man in 2019, living life on easy mode those sort of men, i enjoyed that whole rape case saga, it wiped the smirk of their faces anyway. All those men have to do is lift their phone and they can line up a meeting in a woman's flat for that night.

pinkyeye

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I would protest just out of jealousy of the lifestyle he gets to live being a handsome fit man in 2019, living life on easy mode those sort of men, i enjoyed that whole rape case saga, it wiped the smirk of their faces anyway. All those men have to do is lift their phone and they can line up a meeting in a woman's flat for that night.

That's a fairly scary viewpoint. :eek:

El_Duderino 09

pinkyeye wrote: »

That's a fairly scary viewpoint. :eek:

It's parody. You'll notice this kind of thing on boards and in these "the feminists are out to get us" thread.

Happy to see nobody bit on that one

Quantum Erasure

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The only people who know for sure what happened that night are the people who were in the room, you can't convict a man of rape just because you think he is guilty despite what the rad fems might like to see happpen.

I'd say none of them have 100% reliable recollection of what happened, given the amount that was drank...

Huntergonzo

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The only people who know for sure what happened that night are the people who were in the room, you can't convict a man of rape just because you think he is guilty despite what the rad fems might like to see happpen.

The ole #Ibelieveher brigade seemed to be disgusted this even went to trial, immediate imprisonment of every man accused of rape seems to be their ultimate goal.

They take a very dim view of trials and as for fair trials.....they set their blood boiling completely!!!