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

abbir

tritium wrote: »

Only men can commit can commit the legally defined crime of rape.

Women can commit the crime too, on another woman.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote:

Why is it always a competition? You are aware that working on women's rights doesn't mean taking away men's rights? Campaigning for rape kits and access to abortion for women doesn't mean men shouldn't have them. It's largely a women's issue because more women are raped than men, and if you hadn't noticed, men can't get pregnant. A large part of an initial report of rape is taking care of emergency contraception and so on.

It's not a competition. You were asked what rights men have in Ireland that women don't.

When you count unreported rape the figures are actually closer than you think. Men in prisons are also raped. Do they not count?

Why is it relevant what rights men have that women don't? You keep making it into a competition. Abortion, for example, will remain a women's issue because men can't get pregnant. Why does it bother you so much that people want to improve women's issues in Ireland?

GreeBo

tritium wrote: »

Only men can commit can commit the legally defined crime of rape.

Either gender can force the other (or their own) to have sex with them against their will. The CDC has a rather shameful episode of reclassifying and hiding that exact thing in the appendices a while back.

Not really cool to use a flaw in the legal versus common understanding of the term to score points on something like this tbh

Actually I think using the legal and correct terms and definitions is *required* for a debate such as this, otherwise there are pages and pages of misinformations, misunderstanding and plain old nonsense.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

What utter utter utter crap. So if a grown woman forces herself on a young boy Pins him down, mounts him threatens him and has sex against his will that isnt rape?.
Of course it is.

Its your kinda crap excuses female paedophiles.
Disgusting post frankly.

No, its a sexual assault.
I'm sorry for your ignorance but please dont use that to attempt to put words into my mouth and make unrelated connections to paedophiles.

And dont worry about letting facts get in the way of your posts.

hatrickpatrick

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Havent I just said two posts ago? It is not about this particular case. It is about the wider issue of women being failed in the court systems in the rep and n.ireland. That can be changed going forward.

I have to say lads, you're doing an awful lot to live up to your current reputation as Irish men as 'sexist, cruel and nasty'. If you want to keep in that vein so be it. I have been talking to men abroad on whatsapl, ive travelled a fair bit, and they were all incredibly supportive. So I think I will go and talk to the supportive people and the Irish women who actually want change. Ye need to take a hardlook at how you're acting, and how you are now looking on a global stage.

What specifically do you want to change about the justice system, though? How would you change it in such a way that did not infringe upon the right to due process? Honestly, most people who oppose the protests are all ears, waiting for those protesting against a ruling by an impartial jury to make any concrete or credible suggestions as to how the court system should be changed. What exactly is it that can be done, in your view?

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote:

The first thing I think of is : not being raped.

Yeah.... That's a right afforded to women. Silly statement

Appledreams15 wrote:

Protest marches in ireland are the no.1 story on the daily mail online. So so proud of women in Ireland! We made it!

... Starting to believe you're a troll.

RuMan wrote:

I assumed poster was taking the piss?!

I'm starting to. Sadly judging by the march against justice today, there are more than a handful floating about.

What a ****ty generation of people. Not just in Ireland. It seems to be global. Everything needs a hash tag. Not my president, me too, I believe her, occupy wallstreet. **** off.

Nermal

mayolady14 wrote: »

The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report (2002) is now fourteen years old and it remains a deeply disturbing work. Among its findings: 27% of Irish women and men experience sexual violence in their childhood. Roughly one third of Irish women and men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.

I thought this sounded ridiculously high, and it is.

The survey is here: http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf

The best page to look at is page 68. It cannot be reconciled to your statistic.

hatrickpatrick

To those attacking GreenBo, incredibly depressingly it is actually correct that rape is defined as penetration without consent, not intercourse without consent. So in most Western legal systems, the definition of rape physically cannot extend to a woman having sex with a man who did not consent.

Attacking the messenger over this is pointless, this is just another archaic piece of legislation which should be changed. Plain and simple. Getting mad at people for pointing out that it is, indeed, the current situation, is pointless.

irishrebe

Mokuba wrote: »

Women are suffering.

Jesus Christ.

This generation of women is the most privileged generation in the history of time, and have have not only found equality with men, but have  surpassed men. Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia where there is real suffering going on?

Christ.

Deluded. Anyone in those parades should be avoided.

Sure, no worries that a woman who is raped in Ireland can't have a legal abortion because women in Saudi Arabia have it worse! Silly b1tches should just all shut up and stop bothering you!

The Rape of Lucretia

What time is the #Ibelievetheguys march at on Saturday ?

I really think LON should come out and hear both sides.

Bottom line in this one as I see it, is that just because the numbers involved are getting higher than one is comfortable with, it doesnt make those involved up to that point suddenly classify as rapists.

Ulysses Gaze

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not saying only women can be raped, I'm saying that only men can commit rape.

Balderdash

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

We also pooled four years of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) data and found that 35 percent of male victims who experienced rape or sexual assault reported at least one female perpetrator.

We found that, contrary to assumptions, the biggest threat to women serving time does not come from male corrections staff. Instead, female victims are more than three times as likely to experience sexual abuse by other women inmates than by male staff.

tayto lover

This entire affair just goes to show the shocking level of drinking that goes on.
Remove a lot of the alcohol and the whole thing doesn't happen at all.

One_Of_Shanks

All you can do is go on the evidence presented and if I was on the jury and going on what I heard and read from the trial I would have reached the same verdict as the jury.

I think these fellas let themselves down badly and they come out of it looking like juvenile morons. And while we're at it, a bunch of ass-holes. But at the same time you cannot lock them up for that.

It's a tad scary the amount of people saying they should have been locked up for a crime they've been found not guilty of.

Why there exists an appetite for finding people guilty without sufficient evidence probably says a lot more about the people who are calling for it, or complaining about the verdict.

Maybe its the fact they're wealthy or just the understandable disdain for their extremely poor behaviour but whether anyone likes it or not there really wasn't a whole lot of evidence there to send them to prison and the jury took a few hours to reach a verdict on a case that went on for months, which says a lot about the lack of evidence.

Ultimately people attacking the verdict are doing so for their own reasons, and not for the evidence (or lack of) presented during the trial.
The jury could only go on evidence and therefore they called it correctly imo.

Tsipras

Those people marching today were an embarrassment.

Ipso

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What specifically do you want to change about the justice system, though? How would you change it in such a way that did not infringe upon the right to due process? Honestly, most people who oppose the protests are all ears, waiting for those protesting against a ruling by an impartial jury to make any concrete or credible suggestions as to how the court system should be changed. What exactly is it that can be done, in your view?

Something based on a twitter hashtag when things don't go their way.

irishmoss

Greysquirel09 wrote: »

Have to agree. The moment I heard the witness say she walked in and saw a threesome they were walking free.

Absolutely, and did I read somewhere that the victims friend was also a friend of Dara the witness who walked in on them and the victim turns her head away?

So to me if Dara had not of walked in, this case would not have gone to court. The "victim" was upset she was caught doing what she did and feared it would get back to her friend so she called rape

Checkmate19

Listening to most talk shows last night it was like the lads where found guilty. It was a nine week trial it took just oner three hours for the verdict. There where inconsistencies in the girls account and the only other witness reckoned it wasn't rape. The jury get so see and hear everything. They get to see witness faces there demeanour etc. Weather they are giving flowing answers etc. All we got where transcripts.

The March's today IMO where a bleeding disgrace. What about these guys life's. They are ruined. The jury system is the only one we have. Some commentators last night where basically saying women should be believed. That's not the way these things work. Women have falsely accused men of rape in the past for numerous reasons. Not saying that's what happened in this case but it happens. Just because its a complaint does not mean guilt.

Nobody comes out of this well. Finally the WhatsApp messages weren't pleasant but I bet these happen every weekend of the year and from both sexes. These guys where found innocent and should be allowed get on with there life's because if they are not then we may as well have no justice system. An innocent verdict means notheing.

Parklife1988

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

Fann Linn

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

Anyone following the case should not have been surprised in the slightest. It was fairly obvious weeks ago that the verdict was heading the way it did.

Too many inconsistencies and not enough evidence.

Thats exactly what ex judge Barry White said last night on tv3.
Spot on.

Tsipras

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape?  And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

Hope being falsely accused never happens to your son / brother /father

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote:

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

And I hope your brother/father/son isn't treated like a criminal when found not guilty.

For funk sake

Parklife1988

Worth a read. Written by a real and good man.

On the Belfast rape trial: I read and listened to the print and broadcast media reports daily to try and be as informed as possible. No-one other than those on the jury can know the interpretations and rationale underpinning acquittals and/or not guilty verdicts. What we can all know as fact though, are the messages these men sent to each other, the language they used, the attitude they displayed, the behaviour they described. Toward this woman. Toward women in general. These are not open to debate, these are fact, admitted by the defendants in court. All of it was outrageous. All of it was disgraceful. All of it was absolutely, inarguably unacceptable. It was not immaturity, or drunkenness, or ‘the lads’. It was abuse. It was misogyny. It was the inverse of being a man.

As a father, as a brother, as a son, most simply as a man, I object. I refuse. I condemn. You may have lost a decision in court today young woman, but you have shown these men to the world. Watching a 2017 documentary on Dr Dre & Jimmy Iovine, Dre described his assault on Dee Barnes in 1991 as ‘a major blemish on who I am as a man’. Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding, Blaine McIlroy, Rory Harrison, you are blemished, you are stained. How you treated this woman will follow you, as it should. You owe her, her family, your family, and yourselves, the work that will be needed to fade this stain. You will never be rid of it, but you could, if you have the courage to, lessen it. Lessen it in yourselves, lessen it in other men. It will take you a lifetime. As it should.

To women; our family, our friends, or strangers… we are listening. We will be better. We will stand up and speak out. We will see you, and hear you, and work to protect you when other men threaten you. Keep pushing us, keep waking us. We love you, as women, as people. We can often be weak, and afraid, but we are working to be stronger, to be your equal.

With love.

Arne_Saknussem

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not saying only women can be raped, I'm saying that only men can commit rape.

As far as i understand it women can commit rape, but only to other women.

A woman cannot rape a man under our current laws(statutory rape not included), the most serious crime she can commit to a man is aggravated sexual assault.


4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes—

(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.


Open to correction.

hatrickpatrick

Parklife1988 wrote: »

Jesus Christ the narrative in this thread is depressing. And appalling.
I thought we had a lot more empathy and understanding in Ireland. It wasn’t rape cos they got away it and the court says it wasn’t rape? And she’s a liar and them poor lads! Seriously?

Hope it never happens to your mothers or sisters or daughters.

You’ll no doubt be banging a very different drum If it did.

In any civilised country, due process and the principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" apply. These people were not proven guilty, ergo they are innocent. It's that simple. Any deviation from this threatens every democratic freedom our society is built upon.

Parklife1988

Parklife1988 wrote:

Worth a read. Written by someone who agrees with me.

Fyp

ThinkProgress

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To those attacking GreenBo, incredibly depressingly it is actually correct that rape is defined as penetration without consent, not intercourse without consent. So in most Western legal systems, the definition of rape physically cannot extend to a woman having sex with a man who did not consent.

Sounds like a perfectly logical definition to me!

Ipso

How do you distinguish between real and not real?

Parklife1988

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

In any civilised country, due process and the principle of "innocent unless proven guilty" apply. These people were not proven guilty, ergo they are innocent. It's that simple. Any deviation from this threatens every democratic freedom our society is built upon.

And that society and everything it stands for is helped by people calling the woman involved a slut and calling for her to be named and the endless amount of people pretty much supporting this type of incident and outcome?
I hardly think so

shesty

One_Of_Shanks wrote: »

All you can do is go on the evidence presented and if I was on the jury and going on what I heard and read from the trial I would have reached the same verdict as the jury.

I think these fellas let themselves down badly and they come out of it looking like juvenile morons. And while we're at it, a bunch of ass-holes. But at the same time you cannot lock them up for that.

It's a tad scary the amount of people saying they should have been locked up for a crime they've been found not guilty of.

Why there exists an appetite for finding people guilty without sufficient evidence probably says a lot more about the people who are calling for it, or complaining about the verdict.

Maybe its the fact they're wealthy or just the understandable disdain for their extremely poor behaviour but whether anyone likes it or not there really wasn't a whole lot of evidence there to send them to prison and the jury took a few hours to reach a verdict on a case that went on for months, which says a lot about the lack of evidence.

Ultimately people attacking the verdict are doing so for their own reasons, and not for the evidence (or lack of) presented during the trial.
The jury could only go on evidence and therefore they called it correctly imo.

I agree.My gut felt that if they had been found guilty, it would simply have been because she called "rape" and that in itself would have been a backward step too.

As for the alcohol thing....don't get me started.Surely only in Ireland is alcohol considered some sort of defence for your actions....

There were no winners here.None.Something happened for sure, something she, at some point, stopped being ok with....she thinks but can't remember all that well.It is quite literally her word against theirs, and there is no good way to decide that.

Ipso

Parklife1988 wrote: »

And that society and everything it stands for is helped by people calling the woman involved a slut and calling for her to be named and the endless amount of people pretty much supporting this type of incident and outcome?
I hardly think so

Support what kind of incident.

rafatoni

Anyone tell me what these protests are supposed to achieve?

Pretty cringeworthy stuff