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

Bob_Marley

hynesie08 wrote: »

I didn't, but I don't hold sports people up as a pillar of society like you do. They're paid to play sports, their free time is just that, theirs.

Not if their drinking and antics effects their ability to represent their national team it doesn't.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

It would give us a clearer picture of where we are at in the sense that lets assume, out of every 100 rape cases that make it to court, we are still only convicting 7 people....we now know that lets just say a high percentage of the rest were Not Proven...it would give us a solid indicator as opposed to speculation where the DPP is failing its victims in securing that conviction...

It's only a suggestion by the way...very very few people are even attempting to offer suggestions...when we clearly can't leave the system as it is...

The system needs tweeks rather than major overhaul.

Sensationalism will not help in that.

The problem with this reaction to high profile cases is that it obscures the very pertinent fact that those public reps jumping on bandwagons have done precious little over the years to change things.

Motivator

The Talking Bread wrote: »

He suggested that their alcohol issues (which were from alcoholism, not a night out celebrating an international tour being over off season such as what Jackson and Golding were enjoying ) didn't affect their career. As good as they were and what they achieved, it is pretty clear that Adams, Mersons and especially Gazza's career was affected by their alcoholism

It affected them off the pitch, not on it. All three were exceptional footballers.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Ace2007 wrote: »

What's questionable about the situation?
Let's suppose the guys were all sober when the incident happened - what difference would this have made?

Again just cause you play for the national team doesn't make any difference and is irrelevant. As the marches/posters have said it's the way ALL men behaviour with texts, not just these lads.

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!

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The system needs tweeks rather than major overhaul.

Sensationalism will not help in that.

The problem with this reaction to high profile cases is that it obscures the very pertinent fact that those public reps jumping on bandwagons have done precious little over the years to change things.

Excellent...you are engaging...that is a good thing...

What tweaks would you make?

Silentcorner

Motivator wrote: »

It affected them off the pitch, not on it. All three were exceptional footballers.

In a completely different era...doubt its part of the game these days...

QuietMan2010

Over on the now-locked legal discussion thread someone posted about a particularly vitriolic journalist that they 'wouldn't want her on a jury'. Just thinking about this ... part of the process of a trial is that lawyers can reject potential jurors before the final 12 are agreed upon. Is it now likely that in future rape or sexual assault cases the defence team will check whether potential jurors have ever used the #ibelieveher or #metoo hashtags, and reject them on this basis? So that the more widespread the protest on social media, the smaller the pool of potential jurors from a certain viewpoint who may be allowed to sit on a sex case?

Motivator

Silentcorner wrote: »

In a completely different era...doubt its part of the game these days...

That other fella asked for examples and he got some - era is irrelevant. All three players mentioned played at that highest level, year after year, while battling alcoholism. It didn’t affect their performance.

NAGDEFI

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Yes the root cause of this mess of a case was the excessive consumption of alcohol by all parties, but the rest of your post smacks of more patronising victim blaming and defending of rape.

I think people need to reconcile the difference between victim blaming in rape and the advocacy of best practise in trying to stay safe on nights out for both male and females.

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

Excellent...you are engaging...that is a good thing...

What tweaks would you make?

In fairness there has been precious little of substance to engage with.

I would immediately move to conduct these trials in camera.

I would give representation to the complainant if they wanted it.

I cannot see a way to inhibit somebody's right to mount a vigourous defence of their innocence though.

'Not proven' is a cop out that doesn't really help anyone especially if my number one tweak is implemented.

ShowMeTheCash

Silentcorner wrote: »

We have no idea of the percentage of women who do not report rape is!
We have no idea how accurate crime stats are in any jurisdiction!

We do know we are convicting appox 6-7 percent of REPORTED rape
incidents...a shocking statistic surely you agree....for a very barbaric/animalistic crime....

I don't have any preferred system, but I know ours requires change and fast...

Can you please demonstrate what you define to be sound logic...

Sound logic is to suggest something that will have the impact you desire, usually it will be something you have researched and can demonstrate works or have a reasonable argument to why it will work, it is not however something you dream up and put forward half-@ssed which you seem to want to do.

You want to pontificate on "change" but have no idea what to change... You suggested two things, on of which they already do here in Ireland and one of which they do in Scotland you say this without actually doing any research.

I have shown you the stats it does not change anything, the % are actually slightly worse on the suggestion you "stand by".....

You do not understand the problem but you want change and change fast.... Awesome!

Mrsmum

hynesie08 wrote: »

I didn't, but I don't hold sports people up as a pillar of society like you do. They're paid to play sports, their free time is just that, theirs.

They are well able to take every advantage off pitch of their celebrity superstar status in ways that are positive for them ie putting their names on all sorts of products ie cashing in on their fame. So imo they have to take the good side of fame with the bad ie happy to trade on the adoration and pride fans including children and the general public have for them but then on the other hand they also have to live up to that being on a pedestal and if they show themselves to be unworthy then take the consequences.

hynesie08

Silentcorner wrote: »

In a completely different era...doubt its part of the game these days...

Not to that extent, but premier league teams still like off season games here because it's a weekend session. Or the celebration after the 6 nations, or just walk up capel St the morning after a Dublin all Ireland win. Tom Brady got absolutely ****faced after the last Superbowl win, and the Philly players this year turned up to the parade still drunk. Players have learned to save it for the off season, which is when paddy Jackson was partying.

hynesie08

QuietMan2010 wrote: »

Over on the now-locked legal discussion thread someone posted about a particularly vitriolic journalist that they 'wouldn't want her on a jury'. Just thinking about this ... part of the process of a trial is that lawyers can reject potential jurors before the final 12 are agreed upon. Is it now likely that in future rape or sexual assault cases the defence team will check whether potential jurors have ever used the #ibelieveher or #metoo hashtags, and reject them on this basis? So that the more widespread the protest on social media, the smaller the pool of potential jurors from a certain viewpoint who may be allowed to sit on a sex case?

Ha!!!! Snap

hynesie08 wrote: »

So, have any of the #sueme/I believe crew thought that in future defense attorneys are going to start using social media as grounds to disqualify jurors? Meaning they've basically ruling themselves out of potentially helping victims? Or is that too rational?

This is going to hurt their cause in the long run....

NAGDEFI

Ray Darcy discussing the case next on rte 1. I don't know who he has on.

backspin.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Ray Darcy discussing the case next on rte 1. I don't know who he has on.

Ray is very much a feminist, i often hear him lambasting men on his radio show.

hynesie08

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Ray Darcy discussing the case next on rte 1. I don't know who he has on.

Looking a bit one sided.

Bob_Marley

hynesie08 wrote: »

Looking a bit one sided.

Ray one sided ? Surely not.

Ulysses Gaze

hynesie08 wrote: »

Ronnie o Sullivan was off his bracket on Coke and he was the best player in the world, hurricane Higgins was permanently drunk/hungover, Wade boggs once drank anywhere from 50-70 beers on a cross country flight and destroyed the Mariners.

George best?

Maradona was heavily addicted to cocaine and drinking heavily in Naples and yet still destroyed defences up and down the peninsula for years.

TheValeyard

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Ray one sided ? Surely not.

Im just surprised he is letting his guest talk.

ShowMeTheCash

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Im just surprised he is letting his guest talk.

Definitely not Mary Lou McDonald then so...

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

In fairness there has been precious little of substance to engage with.

I would immediately move to conduct these trials in camera.

I would give representation to the complainant if they wanted it.

I cannot see a way to inhibit somebody's right to mount a vigourous defence of their innocence though.

'Not proven' is a cop out that doesn't really help anyone especially if my number one tweak is implemented.

Well I suggested the first two earlier...

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

C__MC

The biased in Irish chats shows/radio shows since the verdict has been appalling and disgraceful.

Silentcorner

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Sound logic is to suggest something that will have the impact you desire, usually it will be something you have researched and can demonstrate works or have a reasonable argument to why it will work, it is not however something you dream up and put forward half-@ssed which you seem to want to do.

You want to pontificate on "change" but have no idea what to change... You suggested two things, on of which they already do here in Ireland and one of which they do in Scotland you say this without actually doing any research.

I have shown you the stats it does not change anything, the % are actually slightly worse on the suggestion you "stand by".....

You do not understand the problem but you want change and change fast.... Awesome!

Who pontificating? Why do you get to keep firing insults at me?

FrancieBrady

C__MC wrote: »

The biased in Irish chats shows/radio shows since the verdict has been appalling and disgraceful.

In fairness this is the sort of conversation that needs to be had.
I think the 'Ibelieveher' has stupidly muddied the water and it is absent here thankfully.

tigger123

They're discussing the wider issue of rape and consent, not the Belfast trial.

Think they're on the side of people not being raped. Want a bunch of libtards.

The Black Oil

Nermal wrote: »

A letter writer in the IT today seriously suggests that all juries must be 50:50 men and women, have to be chaired by a 'neutral' (LOL) chairperson and should have 'sufficient experience and competency to process and understand' the case (no doubt they have to take and pass a consent class, right?).

Hugely, hugely dangerous assaults on freedoms we have had since medieval times, casually broached in the paper of record.

Say goodbye to being judged by your peers guys, say hello to a kangaroo court of blue-haired fruitcakes.

This is absurd. There have are cases of men in their 60s, 70s and beyond prosecuted for sexual abuse and rape, generally family cases. They are difficult to read about. No doubt there are sometimes issues with sentencing, but I haven't heard the jury make up gender card being played over any of these cases.

Btw, in 2016 - The Irish Times reported that sentencing in Ireland has generally gone up (not by much), on average.

TheValeyard

Journalist with the Daily Edge? They mean a copy and paste artist?

Silentcorner

hynesie08 wrote: »

Not to that extent, but premier league teams still like off season games here because it's a weekend session. Or the celebration after the 6 nations, or just walk up capel St the morning after a Dublin all Ireland win. Tom Brady got absolutely ****faced after the last Superbowl win, and the Philly players this year turned up to the parade still drunk. Players have learned to save it for the off season, which is when paddy Jackson was partying.

You are right actually...it was off season...I forgot that...

hynesie08

tigger123 wrote: »

They're discussing the wider issue of rape and consent, not the Belfast trial.

Think they're on the side of people not being raped. Want a bunch of libtards.

Yeah, it's a fair discussion, was slightly worried it was going to be a hatchet job.