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

professore

optogirl wrote: »

I've gone to hundreds of parties in my time - drunken sex was NEVER the logical conclusion or 'on the menu'.

You've been to hundreds of parties on your own with famous men that you don't know who have groupies fighting each other to sleep with them and sex was never on the menu? Sure you have.

hill16bhoy

Fann Linn wrote: »

Were any crimes proved?

anthonyjmaher said four people were found innocent of rape in the Belfast trial.

I stated in response that that didn't happen.

Which of us was correct and which was wrong?

sightband

hill16bhoy wrote: »

John Lonergan says there is a culture of sexual abuse and rape in Irish prisons.

But sure what would he know, he was only the governor of Mountjoy.

Far better to listen to you, or something.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/doubling-up-in-prisons-creating-culture-of-sex-abuse-warns-former-mountjoy-governor-30242066.html

Is there not a culture of sexual abuse in every single prison on the planet? I’d struggle to see how there wouldn’t be.

maccored

professore wrote: »

You've been to hundreds of parties on your own with famous men that you don't know who have groupies fighting each other to sleep with them and sex was never on the menu? Sure you have.

famous men? Even if they were famous, that means women have to have sex with them? Man, thats a ****ed up attitude to have

erica74

professore wrote: »

As the father of a 20 year old daughter who luckily communicates with me in an open and honest fashion you have NO IDEA what it's like out there- unless you are from 12 onwards in favour of liberal drug taking, drinking vodka and having sex in fields, parties where some of the parents are worse than some of the teenagers, e.g. a mother of one of the daughters shifting a 14 year old boy - that party I had to bring my daughter home from early as she was scared at what was going on, I've seen and heard so much it's unbelievable.

Dick pics and nudes galore.

Literally nothing would surprise me. Having a few drinks underage in a pub or a smoke at the back of a bicycle shed seems quaint now.

And these are not "working class" people either.

My jaw literally dropped!

professore wrote: »

I also find it bizarre that using the woman's knickers as evidence is somehow horrific but the idea that she would go back to the house with 4 men she doesn't know from Adam drunk where sex was obviously the logical conclusion or at least on the menu is somehow less so?

She didn't go back to the house with 4 men on her own. As far as I know, there was 4 men and 4 women, maybe more people were expected to arrive too. To me that suggests a party, not a sex party.

I've gone to a lot of house parties and sex has never been the logical conclusion. One example I can think of from my own experience is, a friend and I went to Derry for a weekend and on one of the nights out, we met a group, there was 3 guys and 1 girl in the group. They invited us to a house party that they had been invited to by group text and along we went to a hopping house party. We were all doing coke for the whole night. I wasn't single but my friend was, the girl in the group we met was also single, the 3 guys were single, no sex was had by any of us that night.

wexie

sightband wrote: »

Is there not a culture of sexual abuse in every single prison on the planet? I’d struggle to see how there wouldn’t be.

There's also a 'culture' of smuggling drugs and mobile phones in bodily orifices in prisons...

Maybe it's best if we don't extrapolate whatever 'culture' exists in prisons to society at large...

RuMan

maccored wrote: »

famous men? Even if they were famous, that means women have to have sex with them? Man, thats a ****ed up attitude to have

Doesnt mean they HAVE to no, they want to.

optogirl

professore wrote: »

You've been to hundreds of parties on your own with famous men that you don't know who have groupies fighting each other to sleep with them and sex was never on the menu? Sure you have.

You really read what you wanted to there didn't you. I was responding to the comment

'but the idea that she would go back to the house with 4 men she doesn't know from Adam drunk where sex was obviously the logical conclusion or at least on the menu'

RuMan

erica74 wrote: »

My jaw literally dropped!



She didn't go back to the house with 4 men on her own. As far as I know, there was 4 men and 4 women, maybe more people were expected to arrive too. To me that suggests a party, not a sex party.

I've gone to a lot of house parties and sex has never been the logical conclusion. One example I can think of from my own experience is, a friend and I went to Derry for a weekend and on one of the nights out, we met a group, there was 3 guys and 1 girl in the group. They invited us to a house party that they had been invited to by group text and along we went to a hopping house party. We were all doing coke for the whole night. I wasn't single but my friend was, the girl in the group we met was also single, the 3 guys were single, no sex was had by any of us that night.

Yes because the women didnt want to have sex with u

professore

maccored wrote: »

famous men? Even if they were famous, that means women have to have sex with them? Man, thats a ****ed up attitude to have

I never said that. I said the chance of sex at that particular type of "party" was very high - and very few people would believe that going back to a famous man's house was to have tea and biscuits.

upandcumming

hill16bhoy wrote: »

At least try and get your facts right before posting.

Two people were on trial for rape, not four.

And they weren't found innocent of the crime.

Four people started this trial as presumed innocent. They walked out of the trial without having that state changed. They are still presumed innocent. They weren't proven to have not committed the crime, but there is an innocent until proven guilty criminal law system in the UK. Saying that they are innocent of this crime is not a stretch by any means.

optogirl

professore wrote: »

I never said that. I said the chance of sex at that particular type of "party" was very high - and very few people would believe that going back to a famous man's house was to have tea and biscuits.

No - she was going to a party. People go to house parties all the time. Since when did that mean Yes I am a willing participant in all and any sexual activity that comes my way?

Bambi985

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

No. Not "women". The friends that your wife has does not constitute all women.

I've personally never heard any women refer to anyone, let alone another woman, in that way. "Cum dumpster", seriously? Says more about your wife's friends than anything else tbh.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The legislation is quite clear. A woman can commit a rape.

Really if it is clear then be clear.
The whole issue people have with you is you make huge sweeping statements with little to nothing to back it up.

What is clear about the legislation.
Can a woman rape a man?

professore

optogirl wrote: »

You really read what you wanted to there didn't you. I was responding to the comment

'but the idea that she would go back to the house with 4 men she doesn't know from Adam drunk where sex was obviously the logical conclusion or at least on the menu'

This thread isn't about parties in general, this thread is about going back to a "VIP" celebrity's house. It's like the difference in going back to a drug dealer's party house and just some random person's house with your friends. OR going on a stag in the Amsterdam red light district or Skibbereen.

People are going to put 2 + 2 together. They are not comparable situations.

wexie

optogirl wrote: »

Since when did that mean Yes I am a willing participant in all and any sexual activity that comes my way?

It doesn't.

Doesn't mean people don't willingly have sex at house parties all the time either though does it?

RuMan

hill16bhoy wrote: »

anthonyjmaher said four people were found innocent of rape in the Belfast trial.

I stated in response that that didn't happen.

Which of us was correct and which was wrong?

They were presumed innocent and found not guilty hence remain innocent.

zedhead

wexie wrote: »

It doesn't.

Doesn't mean people don't willingly have sex at house parties all the time either though does it?

Yes but thats not what was said. What was said was 'sex was the logical conclusion' - not the same thing.

tretorn

If women dont like being referred to as sluts then the simple thing for them to do is not to go to bedrooms alone with men they meet in nightclubs. Women wont do this though, if Paddy Jackson gets back playing rugby he will have his pick of women willing to go to bed with him, these women arent interested in Paddy for himself, they want some of his celebrety torub off on them, we all want what everyone else wants, hence loads of non descript men never got casual sex and never get into VIP suites in nightclubs.

How do women get into these VIP suites, are they handpicked for their looks by security staff or is there any other criteria for gtting in. Presumably Paddy and Stuart get in for free because they are VIP because they can play rugby well but what about the women who get in.

Appledreams15

professore wrote: »

I never said that. I said the chance of sex at that particular type of "party" was very high - and very few people would believe that going back to a famous man's house was to have tea and biscuits.

My mother was raped. She was on a first date, in a pub, and they went to go to another pub.
He asked her could they stop at his house (very near the pub) to pick up something he needed. She said yeah. She went in with him.
He pushed her on the bed and raped her.

She told me about it many many years later. She had never told anyone else before she told me. I was so happy she was able to get it out and tell someone, because it had hurt her for many many years.

She said, when she told me, "People would say it was my fault for going back to his house".

That enraged me and made me cry. People deserve not to get raped! I fight for her and other women like her.

wexie

zedhead wrote: »

Yes but thats not what was said. What was said was 'sex was the logical conclusion' - not the same thing.

Lets be honest here and take the whole quote shall we?

professore wrote: »

but the idea that she would go back to the house with 4 men she doesn't know from Adam drunk where sex was obviously the logical conclusion or at least on the menu is somehow less so?

I don't necessarily agree with this but arguing that sex is never on the menu at houseparties is hopelessly naive and/or disingenuous

Appledreams15

tretorn wrote: »

If women dont like being referred to as sluts then the simple thing for them to do is not to go to bedrooms alone with men they meet in nightclubs. Women wont do this though, if Paddy Jackson gets back playing rugby he will have his pick of women willing to go to bed with him, these women arent interested in Paddy for himself, they want some of his celebrety torub off on them, we all want what everyone else wants, hence loads of non descript men never got casual sex and never get into VIP suites in nightclubs.

How do women get into these VIP suites, are they handpicked for their looks by security staff or is there any other criteria for gtting in. Presumably Paddy and Stuart get in for free because they are VIP because they can play rugby well but what about the women who get in.

Okay. So being a woman she is
A) not allowed to go back to anyone's house before she is pinned down, cut and bleeding. She asked for it.

So rape of all women should be legal in private properties, is that what you are saying?

What about student accomodation. Where men and women live together with people they don't know very well? All these women are allowed to be raped? Every day?

Appledreams15

professore wrote: »

I never said that. I said the chance of sex at that particular type of "party" was very high - and very few people would believe that going back to a famous man's house was to have tea and biscuits.

God almighty. I'll never go to a house party again after reading this thread.

zedhead

wexie wrote: »

Lets be honest here and take the whole quote shall we?



I don't necessarily agree with this but arguing that sex is never on the menu at houseparties is hopelessly naive and/or disingenuous

The whole quote is a little bit contradictory - either its obviously the logical conclusion or its just on the menu.

Either way, what difference does it make. I go back to a party where I know some sex may occur but I do not wish to have sex. Should I not go to the party in case someone rapes me? Or should I assume as I always do that most men are not rapists and will not assume that me going back to a house party is consent

Appledreams15

How does "I am going to a party" = "I want sex".

What on earth have some men been taught.

We need these consent classes as soon as possible

foxyladyxx

tretorn wrote: »

How do women get into these VIP suites, are they handpicked for their looks by security staff or is there any other criteria for gtting in. Presumably Paddy and Stuart get in for free because they are VIP because they can play rugby well but what about the women who get in.

I know for sure that in Dublin they are chosen for their looks and they are not charged an entrance fee.

tretorn

If you head off to have sex with someone who doesnt even know your name then you risk being called a slut by both men and women, other women especially will judge you because you are lowering the bar for all women by your behaviour.

Who are you referring to when you say"pinned down cut and bleeding". I hope its not Jackson and Olding because they were cleared of all charges, they admitted consensual sex and the jury believed them.

Lots of men and women live happily together in shared houses and very few women are raped, four women went back to Jacksons house and three had a good night that ended well for them. I am presuming Jackson has had numerous liaisons, he had another threesome the night after the rape allegation was made and as far as we know no one else claimed he raped them. Belfast is a tiny, tiny place so if there was any question over Jacksons character women would be wary of him.

Maxpfizer

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I fight for her and other women like her.

How?

Let's put the anecdotes and speculation on where blame should lie aside.

How do you fight? How long have you been fighting for? What victories have you won?

Most importantly, what can other people do to join that fight?

My view here is that professore is pushing the idea of personal responsibility. I do not agree with this view very much but I have to concede that not going to that persons house would logically result in avoidance of that situation.

We can call it victim blaming and I think that maybe it is victim blaming and I agree that it's wrong to do that.

Professore is, at worst, offering advice that is... offensive or hurtful?

Following professore's advice would lead to a reduction of incidences of this crime, right? That's logical?

So you've got something better or more effective to offer?

No fantastical notions of mind control please. Most rapists, especially in the scenario you described, know with certainty that what they are doing is committing a disgraceful crime.

.......

This post has been deleted.

wexie

zedhead wrote: »

Or should I assume as I always do that most men are not rapists and will not assume that me going back to a house party is consent

Of course.

But the argument here seems to be made that there is no such thing as women going to VIP sections in nightclubs or houseparties looking for sex. Which is complete and utter nonsense.

Now while I'm not happy with automatically labeling them as sluts or 'consenting' by being there I equally don't agree with the argument women (as well as men) don't go looking for it.

Seem to be a lot of people here who are quite happy to overlook or deny realities which don't fit their argument. Whichever side that might be.