Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Silentcorner

joe40 wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction.
You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to.
In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events.
Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona.
I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women.
If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.

I can't make head nor tail of the point he is trying to make either.

It seems to me, he is asking you if you agree that in the future should we all be held accountable for our messages we send one another, and that there would be panels of people who's job it will be to sort out the good messages from the bad messages and then a further panel of people who may punish us for the bad messages assuming the people on the panels have the authority to punish us for our messages...have I got that right?

I think he is very cleverly trying to lure you into thinking that releasing the lads from their contract with Ulster and Ireland over whatsapp messages wasn't a good idea!

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Well this is a genuine question for you. At what stage is it safe or appropriate for a woman to go to a man room. ( just keeping it heterosexual for convenience)
I'm not trying to be awkward. Genuine question.

When you can soberly assess that it is safe to do so.

Not when you are drunk and alone and in a strangers house.

Seems to me if you are going to advise men that consent must be clear, then you have to equally advise a young woman not to enter a situation where consent is blurred by alcohol, consumed by both parties.

Well thanks for your answer at least you are clear.
You do realise if all young women were to take that advice there would be alot of frustrated young men about.
In this country socialising and alcohol go hand in hand. Socialising and meeting romantic partners are also go together. Your advice is like something from rc controlled ireland that you railed against yesterday. A couple must both be sober before been in a room together.
Good luck with that

upandcumming

facehugger99 wrote: »

It will also be interesting to see whether he can ever get back to the level where he was before his disgraceful behaviour.

Sorry, what disgraceful behaviour?

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

I can't make head nor tail of the point he is trying to make either.

It seems to me, he is asking you if you agree that in the future should we all be held accountable for our messages we send one another, and that there would be panels of people who's job it will be to sort out the good messages from the bad messages and then a further panel of people who may punish us for the bad messages assuming the people on the panels have the authority to punish us for our messages...have I got that right?

Not that difficult a future to imagine when we are being warned that employers are searching social media histories of potential employees.

Isn't it proposed that you will have to give access to your social media accounts if asked at US immigration?

Quite possible your private messaging will be searched as a part of that.

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not that difficult a future to imagine when we are being warned that employers are searching social media histories of potential employees.

Isn't it proposed that you will have to give access to your social media accounts if asked at US immigration?

Quite possible your private messaging will be searched as a part of that.

That has nothing to do with this case though!

If you want to start a thread about the hidden dangers of social media use, then I'm all for it!

Fann Linn

joe40 wrote: »

Well thanks for your answer at least you are clear.
You do realise if all young women were to take that advice there would be alot of frustrated young men about.
In this country socialising and alcohol go hand in hand. Socialising and meeting romantic partners are also go together. Your advice is like something from rc controlled ireland that you railed against yesterday. A couple must both be sober before been in a room together.
Good luck with that

I didn't read Francie's post like that at all. I read it as a woman should show some form of responsibility and assess the situation accordingly.

Seems fairly reasonable and something I encourage my daughters to do.

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

When you can soberly assess that it is safe to do so.

Not when you are drunk and alone and in a strangers house.

Seems to me if you are going to advise men that consent must be clear, then you have to equally advise a young woman not to enter a situation where consent is blurred by alcohol, consumed by both parties.

Most cases of rape and sexual assault occur between acquaintances not strangers. It is absurd for 51 per cent of the population to live by the limitations that the daily threat of assault imposes. Being attacked, assaulted or even being the receiver of lewd comments in the street violates a woman's right to be in any place at any time. Telling women to not go out drink have a good time, to be careful, to only go in herds is not an answer, it only perpetuates further fear. Masculine power relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces... 'she was wearing a short skirt' 'she was walking alone' etc., The victim is always addressed and preventative measures in society are scoffed at and ridiculed. Sex education in school has to change. Young boys with phones are watching porn without any understanding of what they are looking at, porn ideation creates a false expectation of what happens in the bedroom, sure even the 'nice one' after he comforted the complainant sent a three some porn video to his mate.

The focus is always on the potential culpability of the person who has been assaulted, not on why the man did it.

The issues of violence and threats against women are not ones for women to address. Women are not responsible for defending themselves.

Fann Linn

cloudatlas wrote: »

Most cases of rape and sexual assault occur between acquaintances not strangers. It is absurd for 51 per cent of the population to live by the limitations that the daily threat of assault imposes. Being attacked, assaulted or even being the receiver of lewd comments in the street violates a woman's right to be in any place at any time. Telling women to not go out drink have a good time, to be careful, to only go in herds is not an answer, it only perpetuates further fear. Masculine power relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces... 'she was wearing a short skirt' 'she was walking alone' etc., The victim is always addressed and preventative measures in society are scoffed at and ridiculed. Sex education in school has to change. Young boys with phones are watching porn without any understanding of what they are looking at, porn ideation creates a false expectation of what happens in the bedroom, sure even the 'nice one' after he comforted the complainant sent a three some porn video to his mate.

The focus is always on the potential culpability of the person who has been assaulted, not on why the man did it.

The issues of violence and threats against women are not ones for women to address. Women are not responsible for defending themselves.

No different to telling any lad to be careful going down Sherrif St on a dark night. Sh1t happens and there are some bad people out there.

As they used to say on Hillstreet, 'Be careful out there'.

joe40

Fann Linn wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Well thanks for your answer at least you are clear.
You do realise if all young women were to take that advice there would be alot of frustrated young men about.
In this country socialising and alcohol go hand in hand. Socialising and meeting romantic partners are also go together. Your advice is like something from rc controlled ireland that you railed against yesterday. A couple must both be sober before been in a room together.
Good luck with that

I didn't read Francie's post like that at all. I read it as a woman should show some form of responsibility and assess the situation accordingly.

Seems fairly reasonable and something I encourage my daughters to do.

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

facehugger99

upandcumming wrote: »

Sorry, what disgraceful behaviour?

The behaviour Paddy's apologised for. It's been all over the news for weeks now- what thread do you think you're posting in?

cloudatlas

Fann Linn wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

Most cases of rape and sexual assault occur between acquaintances not strangers. It is absurd for 51 per cent of the population to live by the limitations that the daily threat of assault imposes. Being attacked, assaulted or even being the receiver of lewd comments in the street violates a woman's right to be in any place at any time. Telling women to not go out drink have a good time, to be careful, to only go in herds is not an answer, it only perpetuates further fear. Masculine power relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces... 'she was wearing a short skirt' 'she was walking alone' etc., The victim is always addressed and preventative measures in society are scoffed at and ridiculed. Sex education in school has to change. Young boys with phones are watching porn without any understanding of what they are looking at, porn ideation creates a false expectation of what happens in the bedroom, sure even the 'nice one' after he comforted the complainant sent a three some porn video to his mate.

The focus is always on the potential culpability of the person who has been assaulted, not on why the man did it.

The issues of violence and threats against women are not ones for women to address. Women are not responsible for defending themselves.

No different to telling any lad to be careful going down Sherrif St on a dark night. Sh1t happens and there are some bad people out there.

As they used to say on Hillstreet, 'Be careful out there'.

The narrative is most certainly gendered and different.

Fann Linn

joe40 wrote: »

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

Who mentionef this case? As we all know nothing happened there. Not guilty.

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

The behaviour Paddy's apologised for. It's been all over the news for weeks now- what thread do you think you're posting in?

Consensual group sex or mindless muppetry in a private WhatsApp group between close friends? The man did absolutely nothing wrong.

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

I asked you a simple question earlier.

Would your advice to this young woman be to behave exactly as she did, again?

upandcumming

facehugger99 wrote: »

The behaviour Paddy's apologised for. It's been all over the news for weeks now- what thread do you think you're posting in?

That is the only answer people can give - "bu bu bu bu look at the apology!"

But that isn't actually an answer.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

I asked you a simple question earlier.

Would your advice to this young woman be to behave exactly as she did, again?

What qualifies me to give that woman any advice. If she asked I would tell her to be careful use good judgement, but the vast majority of young men are not dangerous.
If she finds herself in an abusive relationship where a lot of rapes occur then seek help to get out as quickly as possible.
This woman is young so when she gets over this I hope she has good nights out in the future and meets nice fellas that dont seem.to have a obsession with spit roasting.
That would be my advice

Silentcorner

upandcumming wrote: »

That is the only answer people can give - "bu bu bu bu look at the apology!"

But that isn't actually an answer.

Bu bu bu but it is...why did Stuart Olding get his solicitor to read out a handwritten note prepared by him, apologising for his role in an unsavoury incident. Do you think he was lying?

Just because you don't think it is an answer, doesn't mean you are right.

Jimbob1977

Conor Murray and Simon Zebo were embarrassed by a certain video.

I'd imagine they're very glad it exists now.

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

What qualifies me to give that woman any advice. If she asked I would tell her to be careful use good judgement, but the vast majority of young men are not dangerous.
If she finds herself in an abusive relationship where a lot of rapes occur then seek help to get out as quickly as possible.
This woman is young so when she gets over this I hope she has good nights out in the future and meets nice fellas that dont seem.to have a obsession with spit roasting.
That would be my advice

Hypothetically, imagine she is your daughter.

Would you advise her to repeat the behaviour that led up to the events in the house of P. Jackson.

Simple question.

ArthurDayne

joe40 wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction.
You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to.
In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events.
Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona.
I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women.
If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.

It is heartening to finally see some acceptance of the context-sensitive nature of private messages. I have been saying this consistently from the start.

The context of the messages were that, on the evidence / facts and the conclusion of a court of law, a girl had drunken group sex with the men involved. The court's conclusion is that, on a legal basis, these men did absolutely nothing wrong. The conversation on Whatsapp thus took place in a context where, as far as those guys were aware -- the girl was upset and embarrassed. It does not seem apparent that any of them who sent, not least Craig Gilroy, had any reason to believe at that time that this girl was under the impression that she had been raped. Not just taken advantage of -- not just treated questionably -- not just objectifed --- not just feeling upset over a regrettable sexual encounter--- but raped (rape being one of the most grievous criminal offences of course with a potential life sentence). Had they been aware of this context then their recanting of the night's events may have been somewhat more solemn.

This is not an admirable way to treat someone. But we were not there. The messages don't stand as a compelling and definitive indication of those guys' views on gender equality or the value of women or that they believe that rape is funny. But a large section of the population has jumped on the Black n' White Bandwagon and called for heads to roll -- but all the while seemingly reckless in ignoring the implications for the freedom of expression and individual privacy. If you were to use the word 'n*gger' in a message it may or may not be an indication of your views but I for one certainly would not find it to be definitively indicative. If you used the word 'n*gger' in a Whatsapp message I would not just presume 'OK you are undoubtedly a racist and you should be sacked from your job'. You may be someone who believes strongly in racial equality and have people you care about or friends who are black and thus the word 'n*gger' has become so meaningless to you that you use it in a tasteless joke or sentence among your private circle with no intent to offend. One can argue it's a good thing -- and you can see how many in the African American community for instance have reclaimed the word 'n*gger' as a term of greeting or friendship -- or to use the example I used earlier so that I am not accused of presumptuousness -- how Fenian / Taig are words which are now so meaningless to me as an Irish Catholic that I don't presume anyone who uses them is automatically sectarian and deserving of dismissal and public shaming.

skearnsot

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't you think they should be told that they are probably not going to find it hanging around the VIP sections of nightclubs or by ending up drunk and alone in the houses of strangers.

Should that advice not have been offered in all the public debate on this case?

I’m pretty sure George Hook tried to make reference to something like this behaviour on the airwaves and the rest is history ............. or am I wrong?! George Hook was not talking about this case at the time either

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

What qualifies me to give that woman any advice. If she asked I would tell her to be careful use good judgement, but the vast majority of young men are not dangerous.
If she finds herself in an abusive relationship where a lot of rapes occur then seek help to get out as quickly as possible.
This woman is young so when she gets over this I hope she has good nights out in the future and meets nice fellas that dont seem.to have a obsession with spit roasting.
That would be my advice

Hypothetically, imagine she is your daughter.

Would you advise her to repeat the behaviour that led up to the events in the house of P. Jackson.

Simple question.

My daughter - no definitely not.

FrancieBrady

skearnsot wrote: »

I’m pretty sure George Hook tried to make reference to something like this behaviour on the airwaves and the rest is history ............. or am I wrong?! George Hook was not talking about this case at the time either

He too was hounded out of his job. Crazy stuff.

pjohnson

I just remembered Geordan Murphy played for Ireland despite never playing for a provincial side. How did that come about? Maybe Jackson could continue in green after all.

Edit. The flanker Easterby aswell did it (Simon?)

Faugheen

pjohnson wrote: »

I just remembered Geordan Murphy played for Ireland despite never playing for a provincial side. How did that come about? Maybe Jackson could continue in green after all.

He won't.

joe40

ArthurDayne wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction.
You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to.
In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events.
Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona.
I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women.
If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.

It is heartening to finally see some acceptance of the context-sensitive nature of private messages. I have been saying this consistently from the start.

The context of the messages were that, on the evidence / facts and the conclusion of a court of law, a girl had drunken group sex with the men involved. The court's conclusion is that, on a legal basis, these men did absolutely nothing wrong. The conversation on Whatsapp thus took place in a context where, as far as those guys were aware -- the girl was upset and embarrassed. It does not seem apparent that any of them who sent, not least Craig Gilroy, had any reason to believe at that time that this girl was under the impression that she had been raped. Not just taken advantage of -- not just treated questionably -- not just objectifed --- not just feeling upset over a regrettable sexual encounter--- but raped (rape being one of the most grievous criminal offences of course with a potential life sentence). Had they been aware of this context then their recanting of the night's events may have been somewhat more solemn.

This is not an admirable way to treat someone. But we were not there. The messages don't stand as a compelling and definitive indication of those guys' views on gender equality or the value of women or that they believe that rape is funny. But a large section of the population has jumped on the Black n' White Bandwagon and called for heads to roll -- but all the while seemingly reckless in ignoring the implications for the freedom of expression and individual privacy. If you were to use the word 'n*gger' in a message it may or may not be an indication of your views but I for one certainly would not find it to be definitively indicative. If you used the word 'n*gger' in a Whatsapp message I would not just presume 'OK you are undoubtedly a racist and you should be sacked from your job'. You may be someone who believes strongly in racial equality and have people you care about or friends who are black and thus the word 'n*gger' has become so meaningless to you that you use it in a tasteless joke or sentence among your private circle with no intent to offend. One can argue it's a good thing -- and you can see how many in the African American community for instance have reclaimed the word 'n*gger' as a term of greeting or friendship -- or to use the example I used earlier so that I am not accused of presumptuousness -- how Fenian / Taig are words which are now so meaningless to me as an Irish Catholic that I don't presume anyone who uses them is automatically sectarian and deserving of dismissal and public shaming.

Context nature of private messages is well accepted, it is not a difficult concept.
The court case found the men innocent of the very specific charges against, it made no ruling at all on apart from that.
The men's own apology to their credit acknowledged their wrongdoing.
We all have complex personalities, but how we behave both in public and private are indicators of that personality.

On a separate note please understand the importance of brevity

pjohnson

Faugheen wrote: »

He won't.

Nah mob rule has probably ended his international career. Any idea the reasons why Murphy and Easterby could and did play for Ireland though? I dont think its a recent ruling as Neil Best stopped playing internationally when he left Ulster for England so genuinely curious.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

But that's part of the problem with the attitude of the boys. It didn't matter to them one bit if the girl enjoyed herself or cried and bleed because of sex. They were top shaggers in their own little world only their enjoyment matters. And if nothing else girls should be told to demand more from sex.

Ive a suspicion their claim of being "top shaggers" was made toungue in cheek, and as part of their childish and immature "bants". I seriously doubt anyone thinks they are in fact a top shagger, particulary when appraising anothers performance.

(Did you ever think the girl in fact got better value, two top rugby players in the same session? The lads after all got 1/2 a share in the same girl).

If nothing else maybe girls will stop throwing themselves at these guys and devaluing their productso cheaply.

FrancieBrady

pjohnson wrote: »

Nah mob rule has probably ended his international career. Any idea the reasons why Murphy and Easterby could and did play for Ireland though? I dont think its a recent ruling as Neil Best stopped playing internationally when he left Ulster for England so genuinely curious.

I think their statements were very well crafted to leave the door open for a return at some point. Particularly Jackson's.

Paddy Jackson wrote:

"My focus in the months and years ahead will be on rebuilding the trust placed in me by people throughout Ulster and Ireland."

Silentcorner

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ive a suspicion their claim of being "top shaggers" was made toungue in cheek, and as part of their childish and immature "bants". I seriously doubt anyone thinks they are in fact a top shagger, particulary when appraising anothers performance.

(Did you ever think the girl in fact got better value, two top rugby players in the same session? The lads after all got 1/2 a share in the same girl).

If nothing else maybe girls will stop throwing themselves at these guys and devaluing their productso cheaply.

Jesus Christ...

Maybe Rory should have tried to explain that to her in the cab ride home!!!