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

kylith

Potatoeman wrote: »

Sure, some but surely not even that many. I’d even say many women don’t like men that are so uncertain and unconfident in bed.

Many more women don’t like men who don’t want any feedback on whether they’re having a good time or not.

Have you asked many women or are you just assuming this?

Uncharted

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Do men on here fully understand the depth of the impact of sexual assault?

As much as I hate to talk about it.

I was sexually assaulted at a party. I knew I had no recourse through the courts, and would be called a slut.

I attempted suicide afterwards. I Overdosed. My mother drove me into the hospital at night while I was struggling to breathe, she was saying "Please don't leave me".

She said to me afterwards she really thought I was going to die in the car, and had to decide whether to pull over in a layby and spend the last few minutes with me, or continue on to the hospital.

Time for this society to change.

Cool story....... you do realise this is the internet? Not a councelling service. Why on earth would you spill your guts about things like that...... just plain weird if it's true and more weird if it's not

pitifulgod

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The truth is that it would turn most (normal) women off to be asked for consent.

'Is this okay, is that okay, would it be okay if...'

Consent is something which is largely conveyed through body language. Always has been and always will be. The causalities of laws like that Icelandic one will be men that have done nothing wrong but have consensual sex and not made sure that they got a verbal bloody yes. Ridiculous nonsense but then it's not the only ridiculous law Iceland has. Place is notorious for them.

http://icelandreview.com/news/2010/03/24/legislation-bans-stripping-iceland

I've never had anyone who said they were turned off because I verbalised consent.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would you extend this to serious relationships / marriages?

Marital rape is illegal you know?

Think the two posts above are great examples of why we need consent classes. Rape can occur in a serious relationship. Consent is not a turn off and it's a somewhat worrying attitude from grown men...

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

You. You are saying that if a man wants sex and the woman doesn't, she should consider him a danger to her (presumably, given the context, the danger involved here is a rape or assault). That is EXACTLY what you are saying.

No, she should consider that putting herself back in a situation where he is drunk and alone with her that he will possibly try again.

Right. So I am to assume that any man who shows an interest in having sex with me is prepared to rape me unless I physically remove myself from the building immediately. Not even stopping to retrieve my bag so I can get home. You really don't think much of men, do you?

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus, anyone else here in a relationship since before all this nonsense in society started over the last few years, and is absolutely relieved because of it?

I know I'm glad I'm not going to end up going home with some of the people in this thread who'd have me thrown in prison for giving them a cuddle on a Sunday morning.

My girlfriend would have me up on assault for waking her up and asking her such a stupid question.. "Pssst.. Wake up.. May I cup your breast and be the big spoon, my dear?"

We're not talking about cuddling

We're talking about people thinking it's ok to perform a sex act on someone when they're asleep.

Massive difference. Keep up.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

As someone said earlier, if you woke up and enjoyed it you're not likely to report it.

Doesn't mean that committing a sex act on someone when they're asleep isn't sexual assault.

If you went down on a woman, and she woke up and didn't like it, you have already been performing a sex act on her without her consent.

If she reported this to the guards, and they brought you in for questioning. Would you admit you did it?

In any relationship if somebody is not comfortable with what you are doing, you should stop.

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

As someone said earlier, if you woke up and enjoyed it you're not likely to report it.

Doesn't mean that committing a sex act on someone when they're asleep isn't sexual assault.

If you went down on a woman, and she woke up and didn't like it, you have already been performing a sex act on her without her consent.

If she reported this to the guards, and they brought you in for questioning. Would you admit you did it?

In any relationship if somebody is not comfortable with what you are doing, you should stop.

You didn't answer the question. If a woman reported you to the Gardai for assaulting her in this way, would you admit it?

drillyeye

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Do men on here fully understand the depth of the impact of sexual assault?

As much as I hate to talk about it.

I was sexually assaulted at a party. I knew I had no recourse through the courts, and would be called a slut.

I attempted suicide afterwards. I Overdosed. My mother drove me into the hospital at night while I was struggling to breathe, she was saying "Please don't leave me".

She said to me afterwards she really thought I was going to die in the car, and had to decide whether to pull over in a layby and spend the last few minutes with me, or continue on to the hospital.

Time for this society to change.

What would that change be, exactly? And how would you go about reaching that change?

All I can see in this thread, and life in general, are a bunch of people complaining about how unfair life is.

If that story is true, its a terrible thing that happened to you. But besides that......what is supposed to happen?

There have been a good few times I ended up in fights on the street, through no fault of my own. A black eye here and there. But its as rare as anything. I know theres no point saying stuff like "society needs to change!" just because I was attacked.

You cant get rid of shyte bags. Its impossible. The only thing you can do is take measured risks and live with the consequences (should I take a shortcut down that alley at midnight, or not?)

Life is unfair, and society will never be perfect. Consider that our society today is the result of thousands of years. Its not going to change very quickly, if at all. This might be as good as it gets.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

As someone said earlier, if you woke up and enjoyed it you're not likely to report it.

Doesn't mean that committing a sex act on someone when they're asleep isn't sexual assault.

If you went down on a woman, and she woke up and didn't like it, you have already been performing a sex act on her without her consent.

If she reported this to the guards, and they brought you in for questioning. Would you admit you did it?

In any relationship if somebody is not comfortable with what you are doing, you should stop.

Answer my question, if you are reported to the guards after going down on a woman while she was asleep, would you tell them you did?

kylith

Faugheen wrote: »

As someone said earlier, if you woke up and enjoyed it you're not likely to report it.

Doesn't mean that committing a sex act on someone when they're asleep isn't sexual assault.

If you went down on a woman, and she woke up and didn't like it, you have already been performing a sex act on her without her consent.

If she reported this to the guards, and they brought you in for questioning. Would you admit you did it?

I’d love to see someone try the ‘women don’t like it if you ask for consent all the time/I’ve had someone fondle me while I was asleep and I was ok with it’ defense with the Gardaí.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

We're not talking about cuddling

We're talking about people thinking it's ok to perform a sex act on someone when they're asleep.

Massive difference. Keep up.

Apart from the fact that that's unnecessarily condescending, why would I possibly imagine that cupping a breast wouldn't fall into your category of sexual assault?

It would be assault if they were awake and I didn't have consent, would it not? How can you now tell me that it's not assault if they're asleep? I didn't have "explicit" consent.

If you want to start calling everything assault, you're going to need to provide a very comprehensive list of what is not assault, so please do.

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

Right. So I am to assume that any man who shows an interest in having sex with me is prepared to rape me unless I physically remove myself from the building immediately. Not even stopping to retrieve my bag so I can get home. You really don't think much of men, do you?

More hysteria.

She said she didn't want sex with him, was intending to leave the party, yet she went back into a situation where he may have tried again.

That is all I said.

One eyed Jack

Mrsmum wrote: »

But let's face it, rape in such a case is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt which is a necessary but very high bar. And knowing that as we all do then we should also appreciate that a not guilty verdict only means not proven, nothing more.

I haven't followed this thread closely or the case itself as I have no interest in celebrity trials, the media circus isn't representative of the vast majority of cases and should never be seen to set a precedent. However, having said that, I agree with you that in most cases it really is nigh on impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused actually committed the crime of rape. There are numerous reasons for that, and not just the rightfully high bar. If you're going to accuse someone of one of the most heinous crimes against another human being, damn right you'd better have all your ducks in a row, and not just a flaky witness with a hazy recollection of the night in question, and an ambitious barrister or DPP looking to make an example of a high profile figure, yet depending on ordinary members of the public to try and deliberate over whether the burden of proof has been met by the prosecution in order to find the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which they are accused.

Knowing that, as I do, means that I don't have to appreciate your introducing a third potential verdict as though it exists in Irish law. The verdict of 'not proven' only exists in Scottish law. Doesn't exist in Irish law, never has. The accused maintains the presumption of innocence before, during and, if found not guilty, still maintains the presumption of innocence after any trial has taken place. The way you're trying to phrase it as though not guilty means 'not proven' is actually your own attempt to make something more out of a not guilty verdict that doesn't exist, as though the accused still has anything to answer for because the prosecution failed to make their case. The prosecution is just as responsible for a not guilty verdict as they are for a guilty verdict, as the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, and not on the accused. It's a not guilty verdict that means nothing more, 'not proven' doesn't even come into it.

The tragedy for victims is there's not much point in taking a case and if you do it's a gruesome process and the tragedy for every man accused is that although they usually are acquitted, there is a stain on their reputation forever.

I wouldn't see this particular case either as representative of, or as a reflection of, anyone but the people involved in this particular case. It's a gruelling process certainly, rigorous even, and it should be, it needs to be, and nonsense like #metoo and #believeher only betray a fundamental misunderstanding, or perhaps a wilful ignorance, of how the justice system actually works. Sure, it's ****ty for anyone when they aren't believed, or when they are accused of something and they aren't believed when they protest their innocence, but I think you're mistaken in saying that there is a stain on their reputation forever. Having been on both sides of that fence, I can tell you that a year later, nobody gave a shìt. A stain on my reputation forever? It's as though you imagine people don't get on with their lives and have more important things to be doing. That's exactly why I don't have any interest in celebrity trials, because they aren't representative of the general public. People in the public eye are, and always will be, held to a different standard, a higher standard of scrutiny, than the general public.

It's depressing all round and it's in all our best interests to open up conversations around consent and taking back consent because I would think very few women or men for that matter are dragged upstairs by cavemen but I would think many protests are smothered by continuation.

Focusing solely on one particular aspect of sex and sexuality as distinct from a conversation about how we should treat people generally, is just socially autistic style thinking that doesn't benefit anyone IMO. It's exactly that kind of one-way conversation where for example you'd be doing all the talking, and I'd have to listen to concepts like "taking back consent"... I get where you're going with that, but the only reason I get it is because I'm not socially autistic, and I'm fairly forgiving when someone comes out with something so incredibly stupid it goes way beyond reasonable. You simply cannot "take back" consent, as it makes a mockery of the concept of consent, and introduced the idea of "rape in retrospect", the idea that someone could decide after the fact that they were raped. That's exactly why a high bar needs to be maintained when someone thinks to accuse a person of rape, again, one of the most heinous acts committed against a person, and if someone is accused of it, they maintain their innocence when they are found not guilty, and none of this 'not proven' nonsense.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Answer my question, if you are reported to the guards after going down on a woman while she was asleep, would you tell them you did?

Why wouldn't I?
I would stop if the woman was not comfortable with it. My intention was to wake her up pleasurably. Not to have some furtive self gratification with a passed out woman.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

As someone said earlier, if you woke up and enjoyed it you're not likely to report it.

Doesn't mean that committing a sex act on someone when they're asleep isn't sexual assault.

If you went down on a woman, and she woke up and didn't like it, you have already been performing a sex act on her without her consent.

If she reported this to the guards, and they brought you in for questioning. Would you admit you did it?

Both of were completely off on our faces and passed out from what i recall. Was woken up by her sucking me off at some point.

This was not an isolated experience and derivatives of it were pretty frequent. Be astonished if my experiences werent pretty common. On many occasions neither party would have been able to recite their own name or address with great authority, the idea of specifically seeking consent in such a scenario is laughable. I consider the idea of non consensual sex repugnant yet the suggestion i need some sort of training to tell me if a woman is enjoying it or not is a joke.

The idea i was a victim of an assault is laughable to me. I worry about some people

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Answer my question, if you are reported to the guards after going down on a woman while she was asleep, would you tell them you did?

Why wouldn't I?
I would stop if the woman was not comfortable with it. My intention was to wake her up pleasurably. Not to have some furtive self gratification with a passed out woman.

If you do, you would get done for sexual assault. That is a fact.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

If you do, you would get done for sexual assault. That is a fact.

So two consenting adults in bed. One initiates an act and stops when the other says they are not comfortable with it and they will definitely get done for 'sexual assault'?

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If you do, you would get done for sexual assault. That is a fact.

So two consenting adults in bed. One initiates an act and stops when the other says they are not comfortable with it and they will definitely get done for 'sexual assault'?

One of them isn't consenting if they're asleep though.

What part of this do you not understand?

givyjoe

Faugheen wrote: »

So you're saying that a man doesn't have to seek consent?

That's a very rapey statement if I ever heard one, if that's the case

Do women not have to seek consent too? Do you ask lads, "may I now put your penis in my gob?"

The Talking Bread

RuMan wrote: »

Both of were completely off on our faces and passed out from what i recall. Was woken up by her sucking me off at some point.

This was not an isolated experience and derivatives of it were pretty frequent. Be astonished if my experiences werent pretty common. On many occasions neither party would have been able to recite their own name or address with great authority, the idea of specifically seeking consent in such a scenario is laughable. I consider the idea of non consensual sex repugnant yet the suggestion i need some sort of training to tell me if a woman is enjoying it or not is a joke.

The idea i was a victim of an assault is laughable to me. I worry about some people

I see the complete opposite.

You would seriously want to educate yourself on the sexual offences law in this country. You might have someone wake up beside you some day with your finger somewhere and, even if you know the girl, or have had sex before she went asleep, she is perfectly entitled to accuse you and indeed you would most likely be convicted of sexual assault under the laws of Ireland going by the situations you deem to be legally consensual.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

One of them isn't consenting if they're asleep though.

What part of this do you not understand?

You want to 'wake somebody up pleasurably' you need consent the night before.

Ok, got you.:rolleyes:

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Right. So I am to assume that any man who shows an interest in having sex with me is prepared to rape me unless I physically remove myself from the building immediately. Not even stopping to retrieve my bag so I can get home. You really don't think much of men, do you?

More hysteria.

She said she didn't want sex with him, was intending to leave the party, yet she went back into a situation where he may have tried again.

That is all I said.

And why is that situation 'dangerous'?

Cyrus

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

Or like, accept people see a highly clouded and ambiguous situation differently and stop spamming the thread with the same thing over and over and over

Nothing ambiguous there was an 8 week trial , jury deliberated , came to a verdict

The Talking Bread

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You want to 'wake somebody up pleasurably' you need consent the night before.

Ok, got you.:rolleyes:

Are you actually serious?

Please tell me you do not realise it is illegal to perform sexual acts on someone when they are asleep? We aren't talking about f*cking spooning here!!

irishrebe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Answer my question, if you are reported to the guards after going down on a woman while she was asleep, would you tell them you did?

Why wouldn't I?
I would stop if the woman was not comfortable with it. My intention was to wake her up pleasurably. Not to have some furtive self gratification with a passed out woman.

Because that would be admission of a sexual assault. Nobody gives a flying fck what your 'intention' was. And people wonder why we need sexual consent classes?

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

One of them isn't consenting if they're asleep though.

What part of this do you not understand?

You want to 'wake somebody up pleasurably' you need consent the night before.

Ok, got you.:rolleyes:

So you think you can do whatever you want to a person when they're asleep, because they're not in a position to say no until they wake up?

You keep promoting sexual assault and rape if that's the case, then.

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

And why is that situation 'dangerous'?

Because he may want something you don't want to give.

The exact same reason you don't go down that dark alley. Not because there is definitely danger, because there may be danger.
She had already decided to go home because of Jacksons advances.

johnpatrick81

Cyrus wrote: »

Nothing ambiguous there was an 8 week trial , jury deliberated , came to a verdict

Based on the differing statements and contradictory evidence it was extremely ambiguous. Sure, not enough to convict. That doesn’t mean they’re innocent.

RuMan

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I see the complete opposite.

You would seriously want to educate yourself on the sexual offences law in this country. You might have someone wake up beside you some day with your finger somewhere and, even if you know the girl, or have had sex before she went asleep, she is perfectly entitled to accuse you and indeed you would most likely be convicted of sexual assault under the laws of Ireland going by the situations you deem to be legally consensual.

Unless the wife files a complaint i'm probably sorted !
U seem naive at least in regard to sexual matters. Sexual attraction is not rational and cannot be managed through some sort of legal contract and thank god for that i say

FrancieBrady

irishrebe wrote: »

Because that would be admission of a sexual assault. Nobody gives a flying fck what your 'intention' was. And people wonder why we need sexual consent classes?

It becomes an 'assault' only if the person doesn't want it.

And the poster clearly said they had no problem with it. But the third party insisted and is still insisting it was a 'sexual assault' regardless.