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

suicide_circus

_Dara_ wrote: »

But what are we do with this information?

Not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Okay, and? In practical terms, what are we to take from that? Should the men who were found not guilty have this forever hanging over them? If so, why bother to find a verdict?

I don't get it.

There's nothing to get. It's pure idiocy.

Mr.H

Mr.H wrote: »

SO you can see why people dont believe you law story?

She could have done certain types of Corporate or Financial law. Little need to go beyond the basic degree if you're not planning to practice it, and aim to just use it to supplement other qualifications.

Although I do hope that's not it, since that would be a silly claim of expertise in this thread. I have corporate law from my MBA and Financial degrees, but that doesn't help me in the slightest for a case like this.

Blud

GreeBo wrote: »

Not guilty is equivalent to being innocent!

My post was trying to explain that it is NOT equivalent to being "proven innocent".

At least we have each other...

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

Let's see. The right for rape victims to be taken seriously when they report a rape (rape kit done, psychologists, etc.) and the right for women to have an abortion, to start with. Are those things not important?

"Right for a rape victim to be taken seriously."
A little subjective but I was under the impression reporting a crime like this is taken seriously? Are you suggesting it isn't? If so I need someone of substance to back up this claim.

But let's look at woman's rights when it comes to rape in terms of the law.
A woman cannot rape a man but a man can rape a woman.
A woman legally does not need consent from a man but a man does require consent from a woman. The act of sex legally is the responsibility on the man... What about the rights of men should these laws not protect men and women?

Onto abortion:

The pro-life campaign in mainly headed up by other women not men.
You want the 8th repealed perhaps get out of your own way.

What about family law?
Let's say a couple get divorced family law favors the mother almost always, kids stay with the mother, family stays in the home. Father moves out.

Let's say a couple have kids and are not married again the law comes onside of the mother, fathers literally have little to no legal standing when it comes to their own kids...

As someone who claims to know the law tell me what laws you object to when it comes to woman rights or is this just your opinion?

And I mean something substantial, if you gets you in a tizzy there must be one that really has you up in arms?

GreeBo

Blud wrote: »

At least we have each other...

I'll be on your jury if you promise to be on mine!

Mr.H

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I did the same. Have a Law degree; did some of the FE1S and some legal internships and decided it was not for me.

What's the point you are trying to make?

So you would have considered yourself "unskilled" when you decided to walk away?

My point is she was caught lying because she tried to use her "class" to win her argument.

kylith

Sprinter Sacre wrote: »

Why are people comparing the likes of the story above with a rape. To make such a comparison you'd have to assume she was raped which isn't the case.

What might a be more appropriate is seeing your neighbour leave your house. Later on you find a belonging is missing. It might be likely that your neighbour is responsible but in reality only the neighbour knows.

Is it possible this woman was attacked and humiliated? Yes it is. Was it possible she was raped? From the evidence and the case presented and the verdict given, no. These lads entered the court innocent, and left the court innocent. For that to change a verdict of guilty has to be given.

Because people have never lied in court?

That no guilty verdict was returned is all we know for sure.

Why believe them when they say it was consensual and not believe her when she says it was not?

It is entirely possible that this is an issue of perception. From her point of view she was pressured into group sex that she did not want by more and more guys showing up. From their point of view they had a threesome by degrees.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

You do realise, BTW, that a law degree is a standard requirement for a legal translator? Not sure why you seem to think I wasted my degree. I'm using it. I don't get the thinking around here, at all.

Because you hid the law degree from your original post but now all of a sudden remembered you had one because you got caught lying. Then apparently its not expensive to study law............ it is I assure you very very very expensive. Books and equipment as well as living expenses while you study 24/7 and not able to work at the same time to pay rent and food. I lived with a law student it takes a long time.

Then of course you would have had to go to college when you were 17 which is common so thats ok. But then before you can sit actual exams and stuff you must do a three year apprenticeship. Then there are countless exams before being anywhere near remotely qualified. Now of course you could have just got your degree or even diploma and left to pursue your adventure as a translator but then again you could have done a humanitarian degree which would have been far less time consuming and would have allowed you to brush up on languages.

SO you can see why people dont believe you law story?

I 'hid' my law degree from a post I made in a completely different forum? Are you sh1tting me? You have that much of a sense of entitlement that you think that if I don't state every single irrelevant qualification I have in a post asking for information about a visa, that I must be lying here? Wow.
And you're telling me it's expensive to study law? I got a full grant and I also worked during college and every summer. You do realise we're not American? We don't get charged hundreds of thousands of pounds in tuition. I got paid to study. I sometimes even had money left over at the end of term. Sorry if that's beyond you.
Your lack of knowledge is cringeworthy. If you're going to accuse someone of lying, it sort of helps if you have any idea of what you're talking about. You don't need an apprenticeship to do a law degree. You go to college at 17/18 and do your four year BA, like anyone else. You're actually expecting me to justify to you why I chose to do law and not something else?  I did law and a language, a very well respected degree which opens doors to grad schemes and further study. What should I have done instead? Paper plane making studies?

freshpopcorn

MOD NOTE Guys, stop all this bickering about if somebody has a degree or not. It's really derailing the thread.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

And thats the problem.
Its not splitting hairs, its a major, vitally important lack of understanding of how the legal system works and what you, as a juror are expected to do.

If you equate "not-guilty" with "proven innocent" then there is the danger that you will convict someone simply because they cannot prove their innocence.

As opposed to the prosecution not being able to prove guilt?

Either way, the accused leaves the court free of the charges.

I prefer living in a world where claims need to be proven. Anything else leaves everything open to too much abuse, and this splitting hairs on meaning is just a followup on that. Nah. Not my thing. I'm happy with my 'ignorance'.

Mr.H

Deleted User wrote: »

She could have done certain types of Corporate or Financial law. Little need to go beyond the basic degree if you're not planning to practice it, and aim to just use it to supplement other qualifications.

Although I do hope that's not it, since that would be a silly claim of expertise in this thread. I have corporate law from my MBA and Financial degrees, but that doesn't help me in the slightest for a case like this.

Of course. But I dont believe her because she only used this so called law degree to win an argument and then was caught claiming to do something completely different (while forgetting that law degree) in a different thread.

I mean ffs she was asking advice on what she could do when she moves to Canada and she said she has no skills but she does freelance translating.........

Dont you think she would have mentioned that pesky law degree?

fair enough moving on

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I did the same. Have a Law degree; did some of the FE1S and some legal internships and decided it was not for me.

What's the point you are trying to make?

So you would have considered yourself "unskilled" when you decided to walk away?

My point is she was caught lying because she tried to use her "class" to win her argument.

I don't consider myself unskilled. Being a translator is in itself a skill, as is being a teacher. I said I don't have any of the named skills for the visa, such as creche worker or doctor. The ignorance in here makes me want to cry.

Appledreams15

erudec wrote: »

We're talking about one woman here, not all the women in the world, or all the rape victims.

The woman in that trial probably was not raped. Even if this was a civil standard of proof, the accused should get off.

They had consensual sex, then the girl panicked when she thought someone had filmed it, so she seems to have made a false claim of rape.

So why did she have an injury and why was she bleeding.
Why did Paddy jackson say he didn't have sex with her, yet Dara Florence said that she saw him having sex with her?

Guffy

Drove past the Galway courthouse today to a protest over the not guilty verdict.

Absolutely disgusting.

The lads were found not guilty in a court of law. Where do they get off?

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

She could have done certain types of Corporate or Financial law. Little need to go beyond the basic degree if you're not planning to practice it, and aim to just use it to supplement other qualifications.

Although I do hope that's not it, since that would be a silly claim of expertise in this thread. I have corporate law from my MBA and Financial degrees, but that doesn't help me in the slightest for a case like this.

Of course. But I dont believe her because she only used this so called law degree to win an argument and then was caught claiming to do something completely different (while forgetting that law degree) in a different thread.

I mean ffs she was asking advice on what she could do when she moves to Canada and she said she has no skills but she does freelance translating.........

Dont you think she would have mentioned that pesky law degree?

fair enough moving on

I wasn't asking what I could do, I was asking if I'd be accepted for the visa as a freelancer with no solid job offer or skill on their list of 'wanted skills'.

kylith

GreeBo wrote: »

Not guilty is equivalent to being innocent!

My post was trying to explain that it is NOT equivalent to being "proven innocent".

Not guilty is indeed, in law, the same as being innocent: you leave the court, you go home, life goes on.

However 'not guilty' does not mean that you didn't do it. Sometimes it does mean that you got away with it. Is this one of those times? I have no idea.

ShowMeTheCash

Deleted User wrote: »

She could have done certain types of Corporate or Financial law. Little need to go beyond the basic degree if you're not planning to practice it, and aim to just use it to supplement other qualifications.

Although I do hope that's not it, since that would be a silly claim of expertise in this thread. I have corporate law from my MBA and Financial degrees, but that doesn't help me in the slightest for a case like this.

I done Computer Science then Mathematics but later had to do financial law as I work with banking institutions..... But like you it does not mean a whole lot here. Also lets face it anything you do at degree level really does not mean a whole lot!

Big difference between someone practicing law and someone that has some kind of law degree..... Politics and Law, History and Law, Spanish and Law who knows vague at best!

professore

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs  by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

Gender is a social construct.

irishrebe

kylith wrote: »

Sprinter Sacre wrote: »

Why are people comparing the likes of the story above with a rape. To make such a comparison you'd have to assume she was raped which isn't the case.

What might a be more appropriate is seeing your neighbour leave your house. Later on you find a belonging is missing. It might be likely that your neighbour is responsible but in reality only the neighbour knows.

Is it possible this woman was attacked and humiliated? Yes it is. Was it possible she was raped? From the evidence and the case presented and the verdict given, no. These lads entered the court innocent, and left the court innocent. For that to change a verdict of guilty has to be given.

Because people have never lied in court?

That no guilty verdict was returned is all we know for sure.

Why believe them when they say it was consensual and not believe her when she says it was not?

It is entirely possible that this is an issue of perception. From her point of view she was pressured into group sex that she did not want by more and more guys showing up. From their point of view they had a threesome by degrees.

Isn't it 99.9% likely it's an issue of perception? Does anyone actually believe these lads intentionally went out that night with the intention of raping someone? Or that the woman went out with the intention of making a false rape allegation?

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

I wasn't asking what I could do, I was asking if I'd be accepted for the visa as a freelancer with no solid job offer or skill on their list of 'wanted skills'.

I'm dropping it. I dont want my "sense of entitlement" to put you down any further.

professore

professore wrote: »

Gender is a social construct.

Social constructs are a social construct..

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

As opposed to the prosecution not being able to prove guilt?

Either way, the accused leaves the court free of the charges.

I prefer living in a world where claims need to be proven. Anything else leaves everything open to too much abuse, and this splitting hairs on meaning is just a followup on that. Nah. Not my thing. I'm happy with my 'ignorance'.

So you think the 4 lads should have had to prove their claim of innocence?

The whole basis of the legal system is that you dont have to prove innocence. The prosecution have to prove guilt.

Assetbacked

Appledreams15 wrote: »

So why did she have an injury and why was she bleeding.
Why did Paddy jackson say he didn't have sex with her, yet Dara Florence said that she saw him having sex with her?

The same witness who said it didn't look like rape?

freshpopcorn

Guffy wrote: »

Drove past the Galway courthouse today to a protest over the not guilty verdict.

Absolutely disgusting.

The lads were found not guilty in a court of law. Where do they get off?

I saw that protest on Twitter of a guy attending it. He seems to like his protests.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Jackson would be better off continuing his club career abroad.

I don't believe he will ever be involved in the Irish setup again. Sad end to what was once a promising international career.

GreeBo

kylith wrote: »

Not guilty is indeed, in law, the same as being innocent: you leave the court, you go home, life goes on.

However 'not guilty' does not mean that you didn't do it. Sometimes it does mean that you got away with it.

Which is *exactly* the point I (and others) have been trying to make!

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why did Paddy jackson say he didn't have sex with her, yet Dara Florence said that she saw him having sex with her?

Dara Florence was sober, Paddy Jackson was drunk, the woman was drunk.

What Dara Florence says is therefore reliable - including the fact that she believed it was consensual sex.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

So you think the 4 lads should have had to prove their claim of innocence?

Nope. As seen on this thread and other SM, their innocence wouldn't be believed after the case... hidden behind a wall of "it's possible".

The whole basis of the legal system is that you dont have to prove innocence. The prosecution have to prove guilt.

Exactly!

GreeBo

professore wrote: »

Gender is a social construct.

I think biology/physiology is in there somewhere too:rolleyes:

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Nope. As seen on this thread and other SM, their innocence wouldn't be believed after the case... hidden behind a wall of "it's possible".



Exactly!

So you are agreeing or disagreeing with my posts?
I honestly cant tell anymore.