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

DEFTLEFTHAND

wexie wrote: »

Out of curiosity what happens in the case of a 'not proven' verdict?

Does it still lead to some form of consequence as a 'guilty' verdict would or is it more a kind of 'we think you're shady as **** but just can't really prove it' type thing?

I presume the case could be open to a retrial if new evidence emerged in the future.

Whereas the double jeopardy rule would prevent a retrial of the same crime if the defendant had previously been acquitted of all charges.

irishrebe

seamus wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I never once said it was 'OK for a women to grope a man. Point out to me where I said that. I did say that the power dynamic is not the same, and then a man groped by a woman is unlikely to have the same fear of being (further) assaulted.

Functionally the argument that you have made in regards to double standards - and that people are having issue with - is the implication that because I am a man and our male ancestors have enjoyed power over our female ancestors, that it's only fair that I now be treated less favourably than women in some aspects, as some kind of compensation for this past imbalance?

No, that's the way you see it, in your weird, twisted mind where everyone is trying to 'get back' at you. I'm saying that a woman making lewd sexual remarks about a man is not benefitting from thousands of years of privilege and treating men like objects to be sold and traded.

wexie

Weepsie wrote: »

Her evidence was not worth a thing as it contradicted what Jackson said happened.

Actually I would wager a guess that her evidence was hugely influential to the outcome of the case...

blanch152

Blud wrote: »

I'm giving up.

I think you understand the point, but I think you have some sort of agenda to declare them as proven to be innocent or proven to be not guilty.

It's either an agenda, or a very poor understanding of the legal system and active pride in that lack of understanding.

They are innocent...........................until proven guilty.

That means..............they are innocent.

Like it or not, that is the way the justice system works in the UK.

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

Jesus Christ, this is just getting hilarious now. You don't think sexual assault cases almost all have a degree of subjectivity?

Indeed they do, but you seem to think it only matters when the "victim" is a female.

The rest of us think that the victim is the victim, irrespective of their sex, height, colour, etc, etc.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Do you know how law works? No, having a law degree is not a 'skill'. And in the context of Canada, they're looking for specific workers in certain fields. Don't let that get in the way of a good personal attack, though.

You know they are currently seeking law graduates right? And you can take the bar over there? You know this though yes? Or are you having too much fun translating stuff?

I don't want to take the bar. I finished my law degree over a decade ago. I've spent most of the last few years working in a specific field, which I can hopefully continue in over there, if I go.

Dyr

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, one law degree (BA), a translation degree (MA), a legal translation diploma, two TEFL diplomas and three official certifications in foreign languages. Is that detailed enough for you, or do you want to know about my gymnastics certificate from when I was 5?

Was it a mental gymnastics cert?

blanch152

Weepsie wrote: »

Her evidence was not worth a thing as it contradicted what Jackson said happened.

I don't see how someone walking in, and leaving all withing a few seconds can say what they saw was consensual.

Your post is self-contradictory. If she cannot say what she saw was consensual, how can she contradict Jackson's evidence?

The facts are, she was sober, the woman was drunk, Jackson was drunk. Who do you believe?

GreeBo

blanch152 wrote: »

They are innocent...........................until proven guilty.

That means..............they are innocent.

Like it or not, that is the way the justice system works in the UK.

No one is disagreeing.

the disagreement is that they have somehow been "proven innocent"

RuMan

_Dara_ wrote: »

Daft question, since most people want to be the gender they were born with.

Chance to move off the bottom of the victimhood olympics table though ?
You wouldnt even need an operation these days, just say u identify as a woman and played with ur sisters barbie doll or something. Probably get a government grants as well.

Amirani

irishrebe wrote: »

I never once said it was 'OK for a women to grope a man. Point out to me where I said that. I did say that the power dynamic is not the same, and then a man groped by a woman is unlikely to have the same fear of being (further) assaulted.

I'm imagine that's great consolation to the men who have in fact been raped by women. Perhaps not as common as the reverse, but certainly does happen.

Why the need to put everyone into a big group based on gender? Being groped and then sexually assaulted is going to be equally terrifying regardless of who you are, maybe just feel sympathetic towards victims rather than insinuating that it's less bad if you're a man because of "power dynamic"?

CruelCoin

wexie wrote: »

Actually I would wager a guess that her evidence was hugely influential to the outcome of the case...

Judge said as much during the summary.

GreeBo

Weepsie wrote: »

Her evidence was not worth a thing as it contradicted what Jackson said happened.

I don't see how someone walking in, and leaving all withing a few seconds can say what they saw was consensual.

Two pieces of contradictory evidence, yet you have decided that hers is worthless and his is rock solid?

On what grounds?

blanch152

GreeBo wrote: »

No one is disagreeing.

the disagreement is that they have somehow been "proven innocent"

What is the difference between being innocent of a crime and being proven innocent of a crime?

I am innocent of the alleged crime in this case, how can I be proven innocent?

Wibbs

irishrebe wrote: »

LOL! I've known actual Red Pill fanatics who are less openly women hating/'men are victims' than you.

Riiiiight. so because I question the daftness in current feminism that clearly makes me out to hate women? Note that folks, just questioning feminist means you hate women. What does that tell us of this busted flush of a politic? Always the victims of the oppressor. I'm a man therefore I must be the oppressor and hate the victims.

Oh and by the by, I don't see "men as victims". About my biggest gripe going on with much of current western thought is the victimhood culture, no matter where or to whom it's applied. I despise that philosophy and have made that clear more than once. I consider it dangerous to both society and individuals. As I posted elsewhere: The Church of Perpetual Victimhood. This church elevates and rewards victimhood and victims and victims are by their very nature not responsible. That’s the key word, responsible. Victimhood is passive. It happens to you, it’s unfair and its out of your control. So we’re told there there, you’re OK no matter what and it’s always somebody else’s fault. This is the mantra of the day.

The thing is gentle reader *trigger warning* Life isn’t fair. You are an adult. You are responsible for your actions. You are the master of your life. Take responsibility. Be active not passive. Treat victimhood as temporary. Treat victims with care and help. Don’t reward them just for being victims, reward them for climbing down from that victimhood pedestal.

I've expressed similar to those MGTOW eejits more than once. "Red pill" types not so much. Though I find their BroScience "theories" daft, their philosophy - and I use the term loosely - is more based on self improvement. The idea that "this is how the world(and women) work(it isn't), so don't bitch about it, accept it, move on and improve yourself for yourself". Even though I find their philosophy daft, I would agree with that aspect anyway.

Sprinter Sacre wrote: »

A law degree eh? Not what you said here:

Ouch.

Aufbau wrote: »

Would you prefer to be a woman, Wibbs?

If I was given the choice these days? Good question. Hard to be objective given I'm a man. Hmmm TBH Aufbau I probably would chose to be born a woman in the west. Now there are lots of factors going on at the individual levels and both sexes have their own trials and tribulations of their sex, but as an average person, yeah I reckon women have the slight edge. Somewhere like India and such places, no bloody way. I'd want external gonads please.

skallywag

Amirani wrote: »

Being groped and then sexually assaulted is going to be equally terrifying regardless of who you are, maybe just feel sympathetic towards victims rather than insinuating that it's less bad if you're a man because of "power dynamic"?

Big +1 to that.

seamus

irishrebe wrote: »

No, that's the way you see it, in your weird, twisted mind where everyone is trying to 'get back' at you.

Don't worry, I'm not concerned about anybody trying to "get back" at me. I'm perfectly aware of the privilege I enjoy as a white male, and I wholeheartedly embrace the movement to level the playing field.

I would like to wave to Wibbs here, who is probably chuckling to himself that someone would insinuate that I'm a red-piller.

I'm saying that a woman making lewd sexual remarks about a man is not benefitting from thousands of years of privilege and treating men like objects to be sold and traded.

Right. So it's a sexist double standard that regards men as having to pay some kind of recompense for the crimes of their ancestors, so lewd remarks by women are fair game, but by men are not. Gotcha.

Blud

blanch152 wrote: »

They are innocent...........................until proven guilty.

That means..............they are innocent.

Like it or not, that is the way the justice system works in the UK.

I'm not sure what your dots help with there, are you a slow typist?

Innocent, yes. "Proven innocent", no. Nobody ever has to prove anyone is innocent or prove anyone is not guilty.

Seriously, this is not difficult. Failure to prove guilt does not equate to proof of innocence since the person(s) attempting to prove guilt do not counter the proof of innocence. They are two different things.

wakka12

My brother went to an Ibelieveher march in dublin city centre today, he said there were several thousand people there, he estimated 3k or so. A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

yourdeadwright

yourdeadwright wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-has-regrets-over-alleged-rugby-stars-tryst-29453848.html

Did she go to the Gardai? How upset was she before her brother saw it?

CruelCoin

GreeBo wrote: »

No one is disagreeing.

the disagreement is that they have somehow been "proven innocent"

So, what?

Guilty if it's a guilty verdict
Not proven innocent if its a not guilty verdict. A quasi guilty verdict then.

Guilty or Guilty.....Are you being serious?

GreeBo

blanch152 wrote: »

What is the difference between being innocent of a crime and being proven innocent of a crime?

I am innocent of the alleged crime in this case, how can I be proven innocent?

Its impossibly difficult to prove innocence, hence why thats not the legal requirement and why a jury returns "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

The difference is that a lack of evidence leading to a verdict of "not guilty" does not mean that the accused did not in fact commit the crime, it simply means there is not evidence to prove that they did.

Al Capone is not guilty of all crimes other than tax evasion. Do you believe he didnt commit any other crimes? Thats the difference.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

Link?

they weren't accused of anything, the girl was cool with it.....but she lost her job and had to leave the country due to the mortification of it....there was a 3rd guy to with a camera who video'd it and they had a tricky time recalling the video, I believe the girls brother was coincidently in the whatsapp group and that was the first he knew of it

irishrebe

Amirani wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I never once said it was 'OK for a women to grope a man. Point out to me where I said that. I did say that the power dynamic is not the same, and then a man groped by a woman is unlikely to have the same fear of being (further) assaulted.

I'm imagine that's great consolation to the men who have in fact been raped by women. Perhaps not as common as the reverse, but certainly does happen.

Why the need to put everyone into a big group based on gender? Being groped and then sexually assaulted is going to be equally terrifying regardless of who you are, maybe just feel sympathetic towards victims rather than insinuating that it's less bad if you're a man because of "power dynamic"?

I'm saying that being (further) assaulted is far, far less likely to happen to a man than a woman. Would you dispute that? I'm saying that a man being groped by a woman is far more likely to cause irritation than genuine distress, based on the power imbalance involved. Would you dispute that? Obviously I have total sympathy for any person who is touched, groped or otherwise assaulted against their will. That doesn't negate the fact that it isn't the same for everyone. I'm a petite white female. If I get pulled over by a cop when in the States, I don't think I might get shot. The last time it happened, the cop wanted to tell us one of our lights wasn't working right. My black friends when they get pulled over have a genuine fear and panic. For a good reason.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'd be shocked and disgusted to see either of them in an Irish jersey. In fact I'd burn my jersey and neither attend or watch any more Ireland matches.

Don't think it will ever come to that though.

Regardless of the verdict (most likely correct form a legal standpoint), their behavior and treatment of a drunk teenager was horrific. No way should they be allowed represent our country.

Personally, I think that someone who has been acquitted of a crime should be allowed to continue with their career. I wonder how many other Irish rugby players wouldn't be allowed to represent the country again if we knew everything they did in their personal lives, or everything they have said in Whatsapp group chats?

On the other hand, I would hope that many other people have a similar attitude to you, as getting tickets for Irish matches has become a nightmare these last few years

suicide_circus

wakka12 wrote: »

My brother went to an Ibelieveher march in dublin city centre today, he said there were several thousand people there, he estimated 3k or so. A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

hopefully we'll see a few people convicted on not enough evidence so.

irishrebe

seamus wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No, that's the way you see it, in your weird, twisted mind where everyone is trying to 'get back' at you.

Don't worry, I'm not concerned about anybody trying to "get back" at me. I'm perfectly aware of the privilege I enjoy as a white male, and I wholeheartedly embrace the movement to level the playing field.

I would like to wave to Wibbs here, who is probably chuckling to himself that someone would insinuate that I'm a red-piller.

I'm saying that a woman making lewd sexual remarks about a man is not benefitting from thousands of years of privilege and treating men like objects to be sold and traded.

Right. So it's a sexist double standard that regards men as having to pay some kind of recompense for the crimes of their ancestors, so lewd remarks by women are fair game, but by men are not. Gotcha.

Never said they were fair game. I said crass remarks were disgusting from either gender. Guess you missed that.

freshpopcorn

wakka12 wrote: »

My brother went to an Ibelieveher march in dublin city centre today, he said there were several thousand people there, he estimated 3k or so. A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

I was actually going to post here a few minutes ago because I saw the video's online and I thought the turn out looked poor and just full of people recording/taking pictures to put online.

Ash.J.Williams

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

Wibbs

On the point of "always believe women", in this case it seems it was the testimony of another woman that was a large factor in what led to a verdict of not guilty, so why believe one woman and not another?