Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Silentcorner

givyjoe wrote: »

What's ignorance got to do with practicality? It's another hole in the evidence she provided. How do you explain the alleged victim being more concerned with being filmed than asking for help, that simply doesn't add up.

She wasn't thinking rationally. She was reacting to what she believed to be a dangerous situation, she thought Rory Harrisson was coming out of the house after her to attack her for gods sake!

givyjoe

Silentcorner wrote: »

She wasn't thinking rationally. She was reacting to what she believed to be a dangerous situation, she thought Rory Harrisson was coming out of the house after her to attack her for gods sake!

She seems to be thinking fairly rationally with regard to being filmed, again being frozen aka going along with it, doesn't add up with this specific action. She very clearly gave evidence that she didn't want to be filmed and that is why she turned her head. All very rational regardless of whether she was actually being raped or not.

givyjoe

Silentcorner wrote: »

She wasn't thinking rationally. She was reacting to what she believed to be a dangerous situation, she thought Rory Harrisson was coming out of the house after her to attack her for gods sake!

Was that before or after she went back in for her things?

Faugheen

givyjoe wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Come on, you're not that ignorant.

Even the defence's own witness admitted that rape victims more often than not tend to let it happen. It's not always the aggressive and violent act that we see in tv shows and films.

Actually, there's a rape scene in 13 Reasons Why on Netflix where the victim froze as you could put it.

What's ignorance got to do with practicality? It's another hole in the evidence she provided. How do you explain the alleged victim being more concerned with being filmed than asking for help, that simply doesn't add up.

Have you been raped before?

If not, you can't possibly determine it to be that simple when you have never been in that situation.

It absolutely is ignorance to claim otherwise.

Could she have thought DF was a friend of the lads? Could she have thought she was in on the whole thing?

Or, it could be what you say.

End of the day, you can't say it doesn't make sense for her to react like that when you have to idea what rape actually looks like or what people think in that situation.

Silentcorner

givyjoe wrote: »

She seems to be thinking fairly rationally with regard to being filmed, again being frozen aka going along with it, doesn't add up with this specific action. She very clearly gave evidence that she didn't want to be filmed and that is why she turned her head. All very rational regardless of whether she was actually being raped or not.

Look, if you are happy enough to believe that then fair enough.

The part of the incident with Dara Florence is only one part of the whole saga that has divided people's opinions, it is not the only one.

Silentcorner

givyjoe wrote: »

Was that before or after she went back in for her things?

She left without her things....does someone thinking rationally do that?

givyjoe

Faugheen wrote: »

Have you been raped before?

If not, you can't possibly determine it to be that simple when you have never been in that situation.

It absolutely is ignorance to claim otherwise.

Could she have thought DF was a friend of the lads? Could she have thought she was in on the whole thing?

Or, it could be what you say.

End of the day, you can't say it doesn't make sense for her to react like that when you have to idea what rape actually looks like or what people think in that situation.

Have you been raped before?

How is it ignorance when you say 'what I say' is a possible explanation.. I haven't offered an explanation, I've questioned the validity of her claiming she was frozen when some of her actions contradict that. Neither of us are experts so you really aren't in a position to determine what is or isn't ignorant.

Your other speculation is irrelevant, in the words of the claimant, she said she turned away because she thought the girl entering was going to film her. I wonder what high profile rugby threesome video gave her that idea?

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Are you trying to speculate as to what the complainant was or wasn't thinking without a shred of evidence?

You know, the very thing you had a go at me for?

You seem to have an inability to understand your own posts and mine.

If you look (you don't have to do it too carefully even) you will see I was asking Silent to 'speculate'.

Wombatman

skearnsot wrote: »

I would also like to say that the way young women dress (or forget to dress) is absolutely appalling! I’m NOT SAYING THEY ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE before the feminazi brigade start spewing about rights and equality etc BUUUUUUT if they are going out with their wares on display like it or not they’re sending a message albeit unconsciously!! If men went out so scantily clad one thinks they’d be done for indecent exposure
Add that to drink & drugs etc on both sides - yikes

"Wares on display". Somebody just sent me a message unconsciously to never invite them to a beach party.

Faugheen

givyjoe wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Have you been raped before?

If not, you can't possibly determine it to be that simple when you have never been in that situation.

It absolutely is ignorance to claim otherwise.

Could she have thought DF was a friend of the lads? Could she have thought she was in on the whole thing?

Or, it could be what you say.

End of the day, you can't say it doesn't make sense for her to react like that when you have to idea what rape actually looks like or what people think in that situation.

Have you been raped before?

How is it ignorance when you say 'what I say' is a possible explanation.. I haven't offered an explanation, I've questioned the validity of her claiming she was frozen when some of her actions contradict that. Neither of us are experts so you really aren't in a position to determine what is or isn't ignorant.

Your other speculation is irrelevant, in the words of the claimant, she said she turned away because she thought the girl entering was going to film her. I wonder what high profile rugby threesome video gave her that idea?

I'm not the one questioning her evidence and saying it makes no sense for her to react like that, you are.

You admit you're not an expert but yet you're trying to say that what her account of being raped is makes no sense, can you not see that?

You refuse to acknowledge the idea that victims of rape don't always think rationally. It's like if a group of people were to jump you. Some people can find a way out of that situation, others let it happen. Rape is very similar in that sense.

You say that neither of us are experts yet you're the one trying to discredit her evidence based on what some rape victims do.

You have no idea what her thinking was that night and you've no idea what it's like to experience rape, so you can't possibly say whether her account makes sense or not.

givyjoe

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not the one questioning her evidence and saying it makes no sense for her to react like that, you are.

You admit you're not an expert but yet you're trying to say that what her account of being raped is makes no sense, can you not see that?

You refuse to acknowledge the idea that victims of rape don't always think rationally. It's like if a group of people were to jump you. Some people can find a way out of that situation, others let it happen. Rape is very similar in that sense.

You say that neither of us are experts yet you're the one trying to discredit her evidence based on what some rape victims do.

You have no idea what her thinking was that night and you've no idea what it's like to experience rape, so you can't possibly say whether her account makes sense or not.

I'm saying she did think rationally, do you not? Who wants their threesome filmed.

skearnsot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry for being coarse, but she could hardly speak with her mouth full.

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

Well, we are told victims of sexual assaults more often than not "let it happen"...do we have any reports of a victim biting a man attacking her?

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah about that. The rest of us all got together and decided we thought different about it.

Sorry.

I wasn't aware of any consensus either in this thread or among the public at large, that private text messages among friends could constitute wrongdoing and that views like mine are in the minority. Can you cite an example of this?

Captain Obvious

Tell me how wrote: »

Facial expressions of and noises from participants would be two indicators I'd imagine.

Christ.

hatrickpatrick

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is completely unjust for someone to have their career destroyed because private comments happened to become public in the course of a trial, and particularly in the course of a trial in which they were found not guilty. It is also gross hypocrisy for "liberal" commentators to say that this is OK, which almost all the media have done.

The word "liberal" no longer actually means "liberal". Ten years ago, it was the ultraconservative religious right which wanted to clamp down on free speech particularly as it pertained to sexuality, porn, etc. Now it's the regressive left, who call themselves "liberal" despite being insufferably authoritarian.

Mrsmum

skearnsot wrote: »

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

I think one would expect to get a belt if one bit down hard.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The word "liberal" no longer actually means "liberal". Ten years ago, it was the ultraconservative religious right which wanted to clamp down on free speech particularly as it pertained to sexuality, porn, etc. Now it's the regressive left, who call themselves "liberal" despite being insufferably authoritarian.

Nonsense. That's just how people like to portray the word liberal to make people they disagree with seem unreasonable.

Sile Na Gig

skearnsot wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry for being coarse, but she could hardly speak with her mouth full.

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

If she’s literally scared stiff do you really think she’s going to be able to do this. Do you think that three big lads are going to be just grand with her biting his prick? If she froze then her fear of reprisal would stop her from reacting. I have no idea what really happened that night but if it was as she said it was then this would probably be the case.

When lads hold the physical balance of power then girls will always be conscious of that. It’s the reason more women don’t call out cat callers on the street. Naomi Alderman’s ‘The Power’ is an interesting take on this.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nonsense. That's just how people like to portray the word liberal to make people they disagree with seem unreasonable.

I used to call myself a liberal, right up until the period from 2012-2014. It is undeniable that the left has undergone a gigantic cultural shift away from cultural libertarianism (free speech without constraints) and towards "callout culture" (say something stupid or make a mistake and a rampaging mob of angry internet users will harass the sh!t out of you, threaten to boycott your employers if they don't fire you, publish your name and address for others to do the same, etc).

Here's a relevant example: When the People Before Profit was founded in the mid-2000s, the left in Ireland was being widely maligned due to their opposition to the damage being caused by the property bubble and soaring property and rental prices to individual quality of life, from individual rents and mortgage issues to the building of gigantic, ugly high rise residential developments on formerly public land. Back then, they were the ones being shouted down - and they were the ones who advocated an "anything goes" political culture, in which no speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be coerced into silence by any means.

Fast forward a decade to the Repeal campaign, and you literally have PBP members openly gloating on Facebook about ripping down posters put up by the "no" side, and harassing hotels into cancelling hosted functions where the pro life side are trying to organise their campaign, in the grand tradition of activists renting such spaces in order to meet and organise.

Ten years ago, the idea of a college professor getting fired for saying something offensive would have been something championed by the right (particularly in America - too-liberal comments about sexuality etc would lead to calls for boycotts) - now, it's overwhelmingly the left which is engaging in this sh!t.

What's happening in this case is absolutely no different. The liberal left of the mid-2000s was all about personal and digital privacy, the idea that your employer shouldn't be able to use stuff you've written on the internet while off the clock against you in terms of firing, etc. This is because at that time, it was left wing views which were regularly the target of that kind of disdain. Now, in the 2010s, it's self-styled "liberals" who are calling for and celebrating the firing of people for offensive words they've said or written, off the clock, unrelated to their actual employment.

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

There has been a political shift but it's simply been people moving further along their side of the scale. It doesn't change what it means to be liberal though.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah about that. The rest of us all got together and decided we thought different about it.

Sorry.

I wasn't aware of any consensus either in this thread or among the public at large, that private text messages among friends could constitute wrongdoing and that views like mine are in the minority. Can you cite an example of this?

You made interesting points about the shift in left wing politics to more authorian, not sure I fully agree but interesting nonetheless.
In terms of the sacrosanct nature of private messages, how far would you take that. A group of people in a group chat making racist comments about the only black employee and the messages accidentally get out. Is that person supposed to go into work with the same people and just accept that nothing can be done.
I believe in freedom but I also believe in accountability. We do not live in a vacuum.
The reason high profile sportstars are on the big bucks is the profile which is generated by sponsorship and public. They are accountable, that the price you ay for been in the public.
If those guys were in ordinary jobs they would probably be back at work today.

RabbleRouser2k

The head of Ulster Rugby made a statement earlier today-discussing the sacking.

Interesting read-but it seems more like a damned if he did, damned if he didn't-as well as to try and improve his own position at the Ulster Rugby club.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0416/954955-logan-speaks-about-ulster-role/

As a man, I'd like to object to this notion abroad here that the sort of conversation those guys had in a WhatsApp discussion is normal. It's nothing of the sort to speak about a woman like that. At least not among any of the men I would associate with. Opposing their carry on has zero to do with this paranoid allegation of "political correctness" and everything to do with a repulsion at another human being treated like a piece of meat. You don't need to have a mother, sister, wife or daughter to feel very uncomfortable at that talk.

Rightly or wrongly teenage boys look up to these men. Therefore, it must be emphasised by people in power - be they teachers of those teenage boys, their parents, coaches etc - that this is not the way decent men carry on. It's just not.

Ulster Rugby and the IRFU did the right thing. It's now time for all the coaches, trainers and mentors involved in all sports to inculcate respect in those teenagers and be clear that the "lad" culture displayed by those rugby players is for men of less quality, to put it euphemistically.

joe40

Deleted User wrote: »

As a man, I'd like to object to this notion abroad here that the sort of conversation those guys had in a WhatsApp discussion is normal. It's nothing of the sort to speak about a woman like that. At least not among any of the men I would associate with. Opposing their carry on has zero to do with this paranoid allegation of "political correctness" and everything to do with a repulsion at another human being treated like a piece of meat. You don't need to have a mother, sister, wife or daughter to feel very uncomfortable at that talk.

Rightly or wrongly teenage boys look up to these men. Therefore, it must be emphasised by people in power - be they teachers of those teenage boys, their parents, coaches etc - that this is not the way decent men carry on. It's just not.

Ulster Rugby and the IRFU did the right thing. It's now time for all the coaches, trainers and mentors involved in all sports to inculcate respect in those teenagers and be clear that the "lad" culture displayed by those rugby players is for men of less quality, to put it euphemistically.

Good post, fully agree.

Fr Tod Umptious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I used to call myself a liberal, right up until the period from 2012-2014. It is undeniable that the left has undergone a gigantic cultural shift away from cultural libertarianism (free speech without constraints) and towards "callout culture" (say something stupid or make a mistake and a rampaging mob of angry internet users will harass the sh!t out of you, threaten to boycott your employers if they don't fire you, publish your name and address for others to do the same, etc).

Here's a relevant example: When the People Before Profit was founded in the mid-2000s, the left in Ireland was being widely maligned due to their opposition to the damage being caused by the property bubble and soaring property and rental prices to individual quality of life, from individual rents and mortgage issues to the building of gigantic, ugly high rise residential developments on formerly public land. Back then, they were the ones being shouted down - and they were the ones who advocated an "anything goes" political culture, in which no speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be coerced into silence by any means.

Fast forward a decade to the Repeal campaign, and you literally have PBP members openly gloating on Facebook about ripping down posters put up by the "no" side, and harassing hotels into cancelling hosted functions where the pro life side are trying to organise their campaign, in the grand tradition of activists renting such spaces in order to meet and organise.

Ten years ago, the idea of a college professor getting fired for saying something offensive would have been something championed by the right (particularly in America - too-liberal comments about sexuality etc would lead to calls for boycotts) - now, it's overwhelmingly the left which is engaging in this sh!t.

What's happening in this case is absolutely no different. The liberal left of the mid-2000s was all about personal and digital privacy, the idea that your employer shouldn't be able to use stuff you've written on the internet while off the clock against you in terms of firing, etc. This is because at that time, it was left wing views which were regularly the target of that kind of disdain. Now, in the 2010s, it's self-styled "liberals" who are calling for and celebrating the firing of people for offensive words they've said or written, off the clock, unrelated to their actual employment.

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

While I agree with you that over the last few years the folks that promote toleration are the ones who are not tolerant of opposing ideas I don't think that is at play here.

Those messages, even though they were private initially did become public, and thus action had to be taken because of their content.

Ten or twenty years ago if these were text messages or e-mails then I think the outcome would have been the very same.

It's incumbent on sport people to be mature in their private as well as public lives, that's the reality of being a professional sports person.

goz83

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I ignore them for the lunatic fringe that they are. Say you have 1.5 million adult females in Ireland, 2% of that is 30,000. A small minority can make an awful lot of noise. Most of the women i know analyse the case in a rational way.

They are also going to post a lot on message boards, tweet and appear more prominent than they really are. The silent majority are less inclined.

That march by that feminist group before the Ulster match on Friday was a damp squib.

Thats just it though. The tiny, but loud minority can make it appear that a majority of people share their views. These looneys have turned the feminist movement into a hypocrital, frenzied man hating machine and its at the point where true feminists actively disassociate themselves from “the dause” and publicly denounce themselves as feminists.

Silentcorner wrote: »

She left without her things....does someone thinking rationally do that?

I’m a rational person. I forget things all the time whether stressed, distracted, busy or relaxed. I forgot my house keys this morning. I only realised after dropping the kids off that I was locked out. No phone or wallet. It happens. I managed to get in though. Now, if the house was on fire and there was a risk I would be injured, or killed by going back in to get my phone and wallet, you can bet your ass I would let em burn, because i wouldn’t be putting myself in danger for trivial things like that.

This idiot got a second chance so perhaps there is hope for Jackson and Olding to rebuild their career yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5106771/Axed-Coronation-Street-star-Chris-Fountain-returns-ITV.html

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

You made interesting points about the shift in left wing politics to more authorian, not sure I fully agree but interesting nonetheless.
In terms of the sacrosanct nature of private messages, how far would you take that. A group of people in a group chat making racist comments about the only black employee and the messages accidentally get out. Is that person supposed to go into work with the same people and just accept that nothing can be done.

I explicitly made a distinction between work related and non work related for this exact reason. Hell, this has happened in the recent past - people at PWC were fired over an email chain mocking female employees and interns sexually, and rightly so. The texts in this case were not work related in any way, shape, or form - that type of communication should be sacrosanct. Behaviour outside of work and unrelated to one's work should not be a factor in one's treatment at work.

It's similar to how bullying a fellow classmate outside school hours is still a school office matter, because it's directly relevant to school - but getting into a fight on a Saturday with a neighbour at the playground, who doesn't have any connection to the same school, is rightly something which your school's office has absolutely no legitimate business getting involved in.

I believe in freedom but I also believe in accountability. We do not live in a vacuum.

I believe in accountability, but not for private, personal communication and correspondence. I believe that this specifically should be regarded as taking place in a sort of vacuum, and always have - and I'm pretty sure that up until recently, it always has.

The reason high profile sportstars are on the big bucks is the profile which is generated by sponsorship and public. They are accountable, that the price you ay for been in the public.

They are accountable to the public for their public actions. Their actions in a private setting are a completely different matter, and rightly so.

If those guys were in ordinary jobs they would probably be back at work today.

Not if the Twitterati had their way, they wouldn't. This type of internet hate mob bullsh!t is happening frequently and it very definitely does not apply only to famous individuals who work in an overtly public setting.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There has been a political shift but it's simply been people moving further along their side of the scale. It doesn't change what it means to be liberal though.

If being a liberal used to involve defending freedom of speech, and being a liberal now involves demanding that people be fired for the words they have written, how is that not a gigantic political shift? It's as gigantic a political shift as it would be if the right suddenly began championing universal healthcare, while the left suddenly began waxing lyrical about the wonders of a two-tiered health insurance system.