Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

_blaaz

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If your relative is getting off her head, and going upstairs in the houses of men she doesn't know on her own, then you have bigger fish to fry than seeing to it a couple lads never get the peace to work again tbh blaaz.

Hmm except they admitted to alot more than this?


Like i said if they spoke about someone related to me id not be happy to see no sancture for em....you can hide behind british justice system all you want mate

FrancieBrady

_blaaz wrote: »

Hmm except they admitted to alot more than this?


Like i said if they spoke about someone related to me id not be happy to see no sancture for em....you can hide behind british justice system all you want mate

Hide? What are you on about. They were not on trial for the whatsapp messages.

Gangu

suicide_circus wrote: »

a lot of jock resentment going on here

I wonder is it because they are into this type of thing that the people they defend are into.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If your relative is getting off her head, and going upstairs in the houses of men she doesn't know on her own, then you have bigger fish to fry than seeing to it a couple lads never get the peace to work again tbh blaaz.

Up to your usual misogynistic women-blaming again Francie lad?

I guess a girl in a short skirt is asking to be raped in your world.

mfceiling

Gangu wrote: »

Given your defence of these people here perhaps the loss of your custom is a net gain to Diageo, you won’t be seen drinking their brands. These guys’ actions to which they admitted in court and the strategy were indefensible and your self sacrifice is supportive of the scene that they were into. Well done Diageo.

I'm sure Diageo will be crying with the loss of my custom. Don't think anyone was watching me drink any of their brands and thinking "he's a wrong 'un".
The very cause of the behaviour on all sides that night was down to the products that Diageo market heavily.

*small writing....Drink Responsibly*

FrancieBrady

Gangu wrote: »

Given your defence of these people here perhaps the loss of your custom is a net gain to Diageo, you won’t be seen drinking their brands. These guys’ actions to which they admitted in court and their strategies were indefensible and your self sacrifice is supportive of the scene that they were into. Well done Diageo for disconnecting from it.

Diageo would sell their product to a 3 yr old if they got away with it. Anyone involved with changing the laws around drinking will tell you of their lobbying. Wake up and smell the coffee - their 'image' is completely fabricated.

Roger Hassenforder

weldoninhio wrote: »

Stheno wrote: »

How do we know they lied in court?

Because if we take each of their statements at face value, the laws of physics would need to be re-written.

Not necessarily.

From OED:
Lie2
1An intentionally false statement.

they might all be giving their version of events which they believe to be true.
Ie. They didnt lie. Being locked etc.

(Except your man with his willy in his hand, hes a bit different)

bcklschaps

is_that_so wrote: »

How long will this last? Murphy's or Beamish await! :eek:

Murphy's might be the answer. Not sold in huge quantities though in any of the bars I go to.

Might try out some different stuff. Craft Beers/Stouts etc.

Maybe jump on the Gin train.

hatrickpatrick

jeffleppard wrote: »

Agreed with most of the rest of your post, but not this part - if she was as drunk as that, there's a good chance the prosecution would have used the strategy that she was too drunk to consent, which they didn't.

Also, there was evidence from at least one of the other girls at the house party that the complainant didn't seem overly drunk, not to mention that the complainant never claimed to be unable to remember anything at all as well as the fact she remembered various details of the evening that weren't disputed by either side.

All that suggests that at no point was she so out of it that she was oblivious as to what was happening then 'came to' part way through.

I'm not suggesting they were drunk. I've been to those kinds of parties before, drink is not the poison of choice - but I'd also imagine no one is going to mention that in either a police complaint or a prosecution, since (a) most people confuse posession prohibiton to ingestion prohibition and feel that admitting to taking something illegal is admitting to a crime, and (b) it would severely damage the prosecution's case.

If you're off your head on ecstasy or coke, you're going to be happier to do things you otherwise wouldn't. If you took a lot of the aforementioned, then when the comedown hits, it hits hard and you suddenly feel like sh!t and have "the fear" ten times worse than with drink. Very much plausible that someone consents to something for the craic, then comes down off whatever high they were on mid-ride and says "wait WTF? How did this even happen?"

Obviously this is all speculation, but in my mind this is by far the most plausible explanation for the chain of events which unfolded, given the acquittals but also the genuine sense of upset on the part of the accuser.

If anyone's taken pills they might know what I'm talking about. The "everything sucks" phase is intense for some people and it can hit immediately after the high ends. I've known many people to hook up under those circumstances and feel like absolite sh!t afterwards. If this is what happened, I would definitely sympathise with the accuser.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Up to your usual misogynistic women-blaming again Francie lad?

I guess a girl in a short skirt is asking to be raped in your world.

Yeh sure FH. Let me ask you, would you be happy if your daughter was behaving like that?


*know I won't get an answer to that...more invective incoming.

mfceiling

Gangu wrote: »

I wonder is it because they are into this type of thing that the people they defend are into.

Or is it that despite not being charged by a Court of Law 2 men have been charged by thousands on social media because they weren't happy with the courts decision. Sets a dangerous precedent for anyone in court in the future.

Cryptopagan

Cryptopagan wrote:

I 100% believe what happened to that girl that night was non-consensual. There was no reason for her to make that up. So to hell with Jackson, and to hell with his supporters.

Couldn't give a ****. He is as innocent as you are for raping anybody. Prove me otherwise

Gangu

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm sure Diageo will be crying with the loss of my custom. Don't think anyone was watching me drink any of their brands and thinking "he's a wrong 'un".
The very cause of the behaviour on all sides that night was down to the products that Diageo market heavily.

*small writing....Drink Responsibly*

Very weak. Does everyone treat women like that, text like that and strategise like that because of drink? No. You can’t abdicate responsibility to act like a decent human being because you have had a few.

hatrickpatrick

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

So it's OK to be in c*nt in private so long as nobody knows

Innocent of rape, yes

Being class A dick heads.... 100% guilty

Of course it's ok. Many people are c*nts and they don't lose their job over it.

is_that_so

bcklschaps wrote: »

Murphy's might be the answer. Not sold in huge quantities though in any of the bars I go to.

Might try out some different stuff. Craft Beers/Stouts etc.

Maybe jump on the Gin train.

I'd opt for the craft stuff, lots to experiment on. Gin train is the line to hell!:D

jeffleppard

weldoninhio wrote: »

Because if we take each of their statements at face value, the laws of physics would need to be re-written.

Any explanation of how the complainant was able to be both vaginally raped and not vaginally raped by Stuart Olding that evening, given that she gave evidence at various points that both those things were the case?

hatrickpatrick

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh sure FH. Let me ask you, would you be happy if your daughter was behaving like that?


*know I won't get an answer to that...more invective incoming.

I'm not a parent yet but as long as she was having fun and using protection, I absolutely would. Doing what you want to do sexually and ignoring society's bullsh!t idea that consensual acts can still be "wrong". That's the way we should all be going as far as I'm concerned.

Never done the group sex thing before myself but I know people who have. Some enjoyed it, some hated it, some had the best night of their lives and others just said "meh, was kinda boring". Why would I care if my future children were doing it, provided they were enjoying themselves and being safe? I'd obviously not be happy if my son or daughter came home upset because of something that happened, but the act itself wouldn't phase me at all. I find it very odd that some people would react badly, in my view that shows a disturbing level of authoritarianism.

Gangu

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course it's ok. Many people are c*nts and they don't lose their job over it.

Most people don’t have a job where their public image rights and morals are valuable - they do. These guys are not “most people”. They play rugby well but success in this rugby world is more than that now. They are of highly questionable character, why would anyone want them to represent a brand.

mfceiling

Gangu wrote: »

Very weak. Does everyone treat women like that, text like that and strategise like that because of drink? No. You can’t abdicate responsibility to act like a decent human being because you have had a few.

Absolutely...But that's on both sides. I've seen women make complete fools of themselves on drink (married women asking strangers to be taken outside the venue and fcuked (their language not mine). Cuts both ways...If both parties get p*ssed then both parties have a responsibility for their respective behaviours.

hatrickpatrick

Gangu wrote: »

Most people don’t have a job where their public image rights and morals are valuable - they do. These guys are not “most people”. They play rugby well but success in this rugby world is more than that now. They are of highly questionable character, why would anyone want them to represent a brand.

I agree with all that, I still think it's wrong and unethical to punish people for private behaviour which only became public because of allegations which turned out themselves to be untrue.

Here's an interesting case for you: Someone who was called as a witness in the Graham Dwyer trial, having used the same website and met the victim previously, was called as a witness. He suffered professional consequences as a result. Do you think that's acceptable? He suffered professional consequences because his evidence to the trial revealed that he was into kinky stuff and that (I think) he'd been having an affair and cheating on his partner.

In my view, such things should be absolutely off the table for getting into trouble at work. The society we're currently living in where public and private lives are so horrible intertwined isn't good for anybody. We need a clear distinction of "jurisdiction" in terms of what counts as something in one's employer's "purview" to discipline and what doesn't - private WhatsApp messages sent outside working hours and containing no messages directly relevant to one's work should 100% not be within that purview, whether those messages are made public for reasons outside one's control or not.

Kenny B

Gangu wrote: »

Very weak. Does everyone treat women like that, text like that and strategise like that because of drink? No. You can’t abdicate responsibility to act like a decent human being because you have had a few.

There are plenty of women out in the modern world, who enjoy multiple partners freed from the insecure type of thinking you are displaying.

The type of things that go on are beyond me now but my Nephew, 24, has unbelievable stories and videos of the nights out and I wouldn't believe the stuff that goes on if i hadn't seen it myself, women are as bad men nowadays - your sanctimonious view is living in the past.

There are also plenty of women who try to bag themselves a rich person in the spotlight and let themselves be used to try bag them, maybe they feel shame the next day, maybe not.

Mrsmum

mfceiling wrote: »

Or is it that despite not being charged by a Court of Law 2 men have been charged by thousands on social media because they weren't happy with the courts decision. Sets a dangerous precedent for anyone in court in the future.

You can't force people or companies to like them or want to be linked to them. Unfortunately we can't unhear what we heard during the trial and it didn't paint them in a good light to put it mildly.

mfceiling

Mrsmum wrote: »

You can't force people or companies to like them or want to be linked to them. Unfortunately we can't unhear what we heard during the trial and it didn't paint them in a good light to put it mildly.

That's true.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Kenny B wrote: »

Are you aged between 18 & 25?

Again, I’d happily display all my text, social media and email exchanges from that period of my life. There’d be nothing like how those guys spoke. We didn’t “all” speak like them at one point or another. People should only speak for themselves.

FrancieBrady

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not a parent yet but as long as she was having fun and using protection, I absolutely would. Doing what you want to do sexually and ignoring society's bullsh!t idea that consensual acts can still be "wrong". That's the way we should all be going as far as I'm concerned.

Never done the group sex thing before myself but I know people who have. Some enjoyed it, some hated it, some had the best night of their lives and others just said "meh, was kinda boring". Why would I care if my future children were doing it, provided they were enjoying themselves and being safe? I'd obviously not be happy if my son or daughter came home upset because of something that happened, but the act itself wouldn't phase me at all. I find it very odd that some people would react badly, in my view that shows a disturbing level of authoritarianism.

I am fine with whatever consenting adults do in a bedroom. And I am fine with people having private conversations.

I would not be fine with a daughter of mine getting so drunk and going to the houses of strangers though. Amid all the ranting and twitter rage a valuable chance to spell out a warning was totally missed.

hatrickpatrick

Mrsmum wrote: »

You can't force people or companies to like them or want to be linked to them. Unfortunately we can't unhear what we heard during the trial and it didn't paint them in a good light to put it mildly.

We can't force them to, we can still call them gobsh!tes for the principle though. But I agree about the "can't unhear" part - which is why, as I said in my previous post, the real issue here is that in the social media age, allowing the evidence in a trial and the identities of the parties involved to get into the public domain before a verdict has been rendered is completely unsustainable.

In the Kriegel trial, the defendants are being referred to as "boy A and boy B". That's the way forward for all trials IMO - the age of instant publication of news and virality online has made it impossible for the "innocent until proven guilty" paradigm to hold true in any arena other than the strictly legal.

FrancieBrady

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Again, I’d happily display all my text, social media and email exchanges from that period of my life.

Which would prove what exactly?

hatrickpatrick

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am fine with whatever consenting adults do in a bedroom. And I am fine with people having private conversations.

I would not be fine with a daughter of mine getting so drunk and going to the houses of strangers though. Amid all the ranting and twitter rage a valuable chance to spell out a warning was totally missed.

Apologies, I thought you referring to the group sex aspect. Of course I'd warn my children of drinking age (not in an angry way but in a concerned way) that getting yourself into a mindless state especially if you're on your own in an unfamiliar place is a spectacularly bad idea, having done it myself many times and regretted it far more often than enjoyed it TBH. But in my view that's how these things should be approached - "this is a bad idea because X might happen and you won't like it if X happens", rather than "I don't want you doing this because I don't approve of it". That attitude from "elders" always just pissed me off when I was young and I tended to intentionally discard anything which came after that as a result. If it's framed in a "this is so you end up not getting hurt" as opposed to a "this is because I don't approve", it's far more likely to actually be listened to.

Same reason I advocate for the kind of drugs education which says "this is a bad idea because it might make you feel like sh!t" as opposed to "this is a bad idea because it's illegal and you're not supposed to". Young people don't give a bollocks what adults tell them they approve of or don't approve of, in my view people who think their kids will take anything on board when it's framed in a "because I said so" kind of way are in for a fairly rude awakening. That was my own defiant personality in my late teens and early 20s anyway Thankfully my mum knew this about me and knew how to be diplomatic in getting their concerns and thoughts across. My dad wasn't like this at first, but he learned

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mfceiling wrote: »

And you know this to be factual how?

By being a person and, you know, knowing other people. There’s not going to be a peer-reviewed study on the topic, as you well know. But if you think their exchanges are everyday bants and you talk like that and experience people who do - good for you, I guess. I don’t know why somebody would rush to admit to that but it takes all sorts. I just know that I and others of my acquaintance (male and female) thought they all came across as thoroughbred knobs. But if “everyone” or “most” people talk like them sometimes, I’m quite happy to be the exception.

hatrickpatrick

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Again, I’d happily display all my text, social media and email exchanges from that period of my life. There’d be nothing like how those guys spoke. We didn’t “all” speak like them at one point or another. People should only speak for themselves.

So you never talked about anything embarrassingly private with your friends by text? People you had a secret crush on? The night you couldn't get it up? The night you got sick on your way home from a club? The night you hooked up with something and got him or her confused with their sibling the next morning?

And you've never made any lewd and lascivious remarks about anyone at all? Celebrities? People you know or knew? Never? Never written that a friend of yours is hot, or that Pauline McLynn has a lovely bottom?

Most of us have had chats with our friends about sexual things which we would be absolutely scarrrrleh' if they saw the light of day in the general public domain. Why do you think it was such a huge story a few years ago when Facebook briefly posted messages from Facebook Chat to one's timeline by accident and quickly rectified the programming error responsible?