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

wexie

zedhead wrote: »

Genuine question. Do you think if she went on trial now for a false rape claim against them and was found not guilty, does that mean they raped her?

As already pointed out that's extremely unlikely to happen.

But, in answer to your question : no or at least not necessarily.

It's entirely possible that she believes to have been raped and they believed they didn't rape her.

It's not like with a murder where you can conclude : there is a body, which didn't die of natural causes therefor a homicide has to have taken place.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

It will never get to a situation of it going to CAS. The IRFU can just suspend them until the end of their contract if they want to. All they have to do is keep paying them. PJ's contract is up in June next year.

He will be very stupid if he pursues anyone legally about this. All its doing is keeping his name in the spotlight.

Suspending him without grounds unless they are set out in his contract could amount to restraint of trade causing loss of income and leave the IRFU open to paying significant damages to Jackson and Holding.

mfceiling

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like the rehabilitation attempts have begun in earnest, but I don’t think the public at large are going to buy it. Especially when he’s threatening to sue everyone who says they don’t believe him.

He's not threatening to sue everyone who doesn't believe him.

It's more to do with people posting on social media that he is a rapist even though a jury acquitted him of the same charge.

As Ricky Gervais said "people now believe that their "opinion" is as valid as "facts".

Guy:Incognito

super_furry wrote: »

Looks like the rehabilitation attempts have begun in earnest, but I don’t think the public at large are going to buy it. Especially when he’s threatening to sue everyone who says they don’t believe him.

"the public at large" are not the mob of simpletons on twitter.

Hes rightfully threatening and /or actually sueing people who publish stuff in the public media (social or otherwise) calling him a rapist.

How many people wouldnt sue a paper that printed a headline calling them a rapist if they weren't?

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is sexist about describing a woman who is, in somebody's opinion, sexually promiscuous as a slut? It is a slang term for somebody like that recognised by dictionaries as such.

You may not like the term, that doesn't make it sexist. Referring to 'all women as sluts' would of course be sexist and warrants sanction.

One of them sent a picture of Dara with her two friends captioned 'love Belfast sluts'.

From what we know of Dara anyway, she most certainly isn't what most people understand a 'slut' to be.

facehugger99

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m not defending sexism at all - I’m saying you can’t accuse PJ etc al of being sexist from a few WhatsApp messages.

Of course you can, do you think somebody else posted their messages?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And I’m also noting that they are far from the only people to have messages in their chats that could be taken the wrong way by the wrong person.

Was just a hilarious misunderstanding was it?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I suppose the apologize was a necessary evil for PR but I don’t think it’s far to take it as him admitting he did what she claimed he did or that he is acknowledging being sexist.

When the person you're furiously defending of having done nothing wrong, has come out and apologised, pulling the rug from under your argument, it's time to stop digging and put down the shovel

Yeah_Right

blanch152 wrote: »

Let's go back to your argument that people can be called something because of what they did but not what they are.

Are women called sluts because they are women or because they engage in promiscuous acts? Using your definitions, wouldn't the following apply:

"All women are sluts" - that is sexist.
"That woman is a slut" - that is not sexist, if it is based on something she did.
"Some women are sluts" - that is also not sexist
"Where there any sluts there?" - that is also not sexist, if it follows from the previous belief/statement that only some women are sluts.

Now, let's be clear, I am using your definitions here, and the above should not be taken to represent my view.

My girlfriend and her friends call each other sluts. Sometimes they even do it on Whatsap and Facebook. Is that sexist? Are they sluts? Is it offensive ?
Should they apologise.

Mrsmum

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Its called PR mate. All part of the rehabilitation. There will be classes/courses run by some professor/doctor in sociology or women studies or sexuality. He will probably have to do a few talks to young men/schoolboys about respecting women. I wouldn't be surprised if he started attending church with a couple of his more religious Ulster teammates and then he will be back on the field and this will all be forgotten.

Don't care why he did it. What's important is that he has said publicly what he did was way below standard (and that's putting it mildly). If you don't think it was, argue it out with him, he doesn't seem to agree with you. If you are saying he doesn't mean it, well then he must feel really, really humiliated having to apologise so for anyone who thinks his behaviour was disgustingly disrespectful, it's a win win either way.

freshpopcorn

Yeah_Right wrote: »

My girlfriend and her friends call each other sluts. Sometimes they even do it on Whatsap and Facebook. Is that sexist? Are they sluts? Is it offensive ?
Should they apologise.

I suppose if they were in the public eye then maybe.
Fair City last week said slut a few times even wrote it in blood on a fridge. They haven't apologised yet.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Suspending him without grounds unless they are set out in his contract could amount to restraint of trade causing loss of income and leave the IRFU open to paying significant damages to Jackson and Holding.

Well then, just let him train away every day, just don't pick him. That will do nothing but harm the Ulster squad and bearing in mind the strong Christian ethos of some of the squad & staff I believe, some might have difficulty with him in the squad. Just remember Presbyterians aren't as forgiving as RCs. I recall when Iris Robinson had her extra marital dalliance, her first public appearance after her 'rehab' was in Dublin.

Appledreams15

Jackson's apology sounded heartfelt today.

I'm glad he did it.

I'm glad he understood the public anger at him.

And I'm glad he has learned from it.

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

You persist in that argument. As far as I.know the term.was used in relation to a photo with women, they did not know. The "slut" word was a generic term for women they meet on nights out. I'm not old fsshioned, or a prude but that is just horrible. And no everyone is not like that and it is not the same as jokey banter, dirty jokes etc there is a world of a difference.
I'm from donegal imagine if my daughter got a selfie with Michael Murphy and he then sent a whatsapp message to other team members some " letterkenny sluts" would you seriously try to defend that, cause if so you would go well down in my estimation.

Well, I wouldn't get too upset as I would realise he didn't know my daughter.

Seriously, if you want to live in a world where people get upset to the level they have about private messages between a group of lads, go ahead.
Most of us aren't.

The comment, in private, not directed at womankind in general is not sexist.
There are promiscuous women (sluts, as some like to call them) in the world, the lads had no problems taking advantage of that promiscuity so I am not even sure they were being derogatory and where being the male equivalent (horndogs)

Most men and women grow out of that phase.

GreeBo

Grayson wrote: »

wtf are you trying to say?

Are you actually trying to argue against people calling out sexism?

I'm not *trying* to say anything.

What I am stating is that your argument is sexist.

If its wrong for a man to call a woman a slut, but fine for a woman to call another woman a slut (as the complainant did in this case) then that is treating people differently because of nothing other than their sex.

They have a word for that now...I bet you can guess what it is.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't get too upset as I would realise he didn't know my daughter.

Seriously, if you want to live in a world where people get upset to the level they have about private messages between a group of lads, go ahead.
Most of us aren't.

The comment, in private, not directed at womankind in general is not sexist.
There are promiscuous women (sluts, as some like to call them) in the world, the lads had no problems taking advantage of that promiscuity so I am not even sure they were being derogatory and where being the male equivalent (horndogs)

Most men and women grow out of that phase.

Thanks for that, its all I need to know.

cloudatlas

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

Even one of the rugby players admits the language is demeaning and wrong.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ashamed-paddy-jackson-apologises-for-degrading-messages-1.3452843

Seriously, stop trying to defend sexism. It's disgusting.

I’m not defending sexism at all - I’m saying you can’t accuse PJ etc al of being sexist from a few WhatsApp messages.

And I’m also noting that they are far from the only people to have messages in their chats that could be taken the wrong way by the wrong person.

I suppose the apologize was a necessary evil for PR but I don’t think it’s far to take it as him admitting he did what she claimed he did or that he is acknowledging being sexist.

Yes you can accuse them of sexism because the mesages were sexist and full of misogyny. The defence is sure this is normal bants. If it is then it is also sexist and in my opinion not normal.

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Jackson's apology sounded heartfelt today.

I'm glad he did it.

I'm glad he understood the public anger at him.

And I'm glad he has learned from it.

Damage limitation.......... he's thinking of his pocket.

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

You persist in that argument. As far as I.know the term.was used in relation to a photo with women, they did not know. The "slut" word was a generic term for women they meet on nights out. I'm not old fsshioned, or a prude but that is just horrible. And no everyone is not like that and it is not the same as jokey banter, dirty jokes etc there is a world of a difference.
I'm from donegal imagine if my daughter got a selfie with Michael Murphy and he then sent a whatsapp message to other team members some " letterkenny sluts" would you seriously try to defend that, cause if so you would go well down in my estimation.

Well, I wouldn't get too upset as I would realise he didn't know my daughter.

Seriously, if you want to live in a world where people get upset to the level they have about private messages between a group of lads, go ahead.
Most of us aren't.

The comment, in private, not directed at womankind in general is not sexist.
There are promiscuous women (sluts, as some like to call them) in the world, the lads had no problems taking advantage of that promiscuity so I am not even sure they were being derogatory and where being the male equivalent (horndogs)

Most men and women grow out of that phase.

"Love Belfast sluts" how many women is that in your opinion?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

so I am not even sure they were being derogatory

Let's have Paddy help you out so


“I am also truly sorry for engaging in a Whatsapp group chat which was degrading and offensive and I apologise unreservedly for this.

“The criticism of my behaviour is fully justified and I know I have betrayed the values of my family and those of the wider public."

wexie

cloudatlas wrote: »

"Love Belfast sluts" how many women is that in your opinion?

See.....the discussion on this can go on forever and nobody would ever come out on top.

You could argue : all women in Belfast

or : Just the women in Belfast with questionable morals.

And neither side could prove the other wrong.

Strazdas

cloudatlas wrote: »

Yes you can accuse them of sexism because the mesages were sexist and full of misogyny. The defence is sure this is normal bants. If it is then it is also sexist and in my opinion not normal.

It's definitely not normal. Referring to women as 'brasses' and 'sluts' sounds like a bunch of guys who don't particularly like women rather than regular lads banter.

Not every younger man is part of this "sports jock" mentality.

jm08

Yeah_Right wrote: »

My girlfriend and her friends call each other sluts. Sometimes they even do it on Whatsap and Facebook. Is that sexist? Are they sluts? Is it offensive ?
Should they apologise.

In what context do they call each others sluts? Dictionary definition.
slut noun [ C ] (SEXUALLY ACTIVE WOMAN)slang disapproving a woman who has sexual relationships with a lot of men without any emotional involvement


slut noun [ C ] (LAZY WOMAN)

UK very informal disapproving a woman who is usually untidy and lazy

Yeah_Right

mfceiling wrote: »

He's not threatening to sue everyone who doesn't believe him.

It's more to do with people posting on social media that he is a rapist even though a jury acquitted him of the same charge.

As Ricky Gervais said "people now believe that their "opinion" is as valid as "facts".

I'm not on Twitter but I read that the "spokeswoman for women everywhere" Louise O'Neill stopped directly referring them as rapists in her tweets after his lawyer mentioned legal action. She now just hints at it or shares other people's tweets. She avoids a lawsuit but keeps her followers and therefore protects her income. A bit like the players apologise, do their rehab and get back to earning money on the field.

Appledreams15

Augeo wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Jackson's apology sounded heartfelt today.

I'm glad he did it.

I'm glad he understood the public anger at him.

And I'm glad he has learned from it.

Damage limitation.......... he's thinking of his pocket.

He had to apologise. I know that, for his career. But it doesn't sound generic. He could have just said 'I sincerely apologise for my actions on that night".
It sounds to me that he has reflected and put thought into it. And I suppose if you have thousands of people all over Ireland protesting your actions, you might realise you did something wrong

facehugger99

Strazdas wrote: »

It's definitely not normal. Referring to women as 'brasses' and 'sluts' sounds like a bunch of guys who don't particularly like women rather than regular lads banter.

Not every younger man is part of this "sports jock" mentality.

It's deeply worrying the amount of people trying to normalise it.

I thought the language used was dehumanizing, which is a very dangerous place to take things. It means you can say anything or do anything to others because they're not fully human.

Language is important and how people use it to describe one another is important.

cloudatlas

wexie wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

"Love Belfast sluts" how many women is that in your opinion?

See.....the discussion on this can go on forever and nobody would ever come out on top.

You could argue : all women in Belfast

or : Just the women in Belfast with questionable morals.

And neither side could prove the other wrong.

"Questionable morals" for being sexually active and liking to have sex. So archaic so unbelievably out of date, not to mention stupid and naive.

FrancieBrady

wexie wrote: »

See.....the discussion on this can go on forever and nobody would ever come out on top.

You could argue : all women in Belfast

or : Just the women in Belfast with questionable morals.

And neither side could prove the other wrong.

Or just the women in the picture the message accompanied.

I wouldn't expect some of the people on here to accept this argument.

They will broach no mention of how some women behave as they insist on being offended on behalf of ALL women.

joe40

Chief Supt. Lorraine Wheatley wrote: »

As a Chief Superintendent in AGS, this case has been driving me absolutely round the bend. My colleagues in the PSNI agree that it is a bit of a circus by all accounts. I have obviously had years of experience in the law and I have never seen something as ridiculous as this. Paddy Jackson was found not guilty in a court of law. NOT guilty. It is absolute nonsense that people went out on the streets and protested against a verdict which stands legally.

If the woman wants to appeal the verdict then she can do so.

The men should be left alone. I am a woman and a Chief Super in the Gardaí and find this outrageous. I do feel sorry for the men involved.

That is just my opinion.

Lorraine.

I would say most people on this forum accept the jury verdict, but most of the discussion is about the sexism/poor behaviour or lack displayed and impacts on wider society.
Plenty of different opinions but in fairness very few questioning the jury decision.

Surprised that you think the case could be appealed.

jm08

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not *trying* to say anything.

What I am stating is that your argument is sexist.

If its wrong for a man to call a woman a slut, but fine for a woman to call another woman a slut (as the complainant did in this case) then that is treating people differently because of nothing other than their sex.

They have a word for that now...I bet you can guess what it is.

She didn't call another woman a slut - what she said was the girls were 'being slutty.' (which could, according to the dictionary mean that they were either being 'untidy or lazy' or being 'promiscuous with many casual sexual partners'.'

Appledreams15

I really feel from the apology that Jackson does feel bad about her leaving in a very distressed state. He specifically apologised for it.
A very steep learning curve for everyone.

GreeBo

jm08 wrote: »

She didn't call another woman a slut - what she said was the girls were 'being slutty.' (which could, according to the dictionary mean that they were either being 'untidy or lazy' or being 'promiscuous with many casual sexual partners'.'

Who, in your opinion, are "being slutty" other than people you would describe as "sluts"?

Can I not use the word "fast" to describe someone who is running fast?

I'd go so far as to say that "slut" is the correct noun to use for someone who is acting "slutty".