Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

No, its not unlawful - so you think its ok?



Dear god. Caveman stuff.

Some women behave in a slutty (loose morals, hedonistic etc etc)way.

You do know this, yeh?

So you want lives destroyed because you are offended by a word (that was used in a private conversation)

Wow. Did someone mention dinosaurs?

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I have no idea why. Maybe she was behaving like one, maybe she wasn't.

'Slut' is a descriptive word for certain behaviour in the dictionary. You or I may not like it being used, but it isn't illegal.

There is a difference between ''slutty behaviour'' and being labelled a (Belfast) slut on an image and circulated on social media.

Blazer

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The Donegal rape case that's been in the media reminded me of this case. I assumed it's why it was back again.

There another male was found innocent of rape despite leaving a girl he'd just had sex with bleeding, injured, crying and what witnesses described as hysterical in public.

On this occasion, the girl left with severe head injuries and vaginal injuries that medical exams found were not consistent with any consensual act. During the rape a car arrived in the area and while the male asked the driver to leave the victim rang and texted a friends begging for help but he returned. Those texts were entered as evidence.

The lack of conviction hinged on the fact that afterwards she walked back up the road with the boy in question and allowed him give her a brief kiss...while crying hysterically and bleeding from the head and vagina.

There's something very wrong with some young men and the justice system.

The idea that there are men walking around there who can have sex and leave a woman bleeding and hysterically crying and assume a good night has been had by all is really frightening.

Absolutely shocking post...you're completely wrong in posting that and you should immediately rewrite it or delete it.
Because you're just posted a lie which is easily disproved and potentially leave you with legal issues.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

There is a difference between ''slutty behaviour'' and being labelled a (Belfast) slut on an image and circulated on social media.

Ha ha ha. Brilliant sidestepping.

DavidLyons_

jm08 wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Being a misogynistic asshole is not really an unlawful offence - much as some braindead wretches would like it to be - so not sure where you're coming from. There's no cure for being a c**t as Bronn in Game of Thrones says.

No, its not unlawful - so you think its ok?



Dear god. Caveman stuff.

Dear God my arse.

You're really struggling here and clutching at straws.

Accept the verdict and that the lads have been allowed to get on with their lives.

Please God the likes of you never has to perform jury duty. Or God forbid you ever do or say something some fragile flower finds offensive.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some women behave in a slutty (loose morals, hedonistic etc etc)way.

You do know this, yeh?

So you want lives destroyed because you are offended by a word (that was used in a private conversation)

Wow. Did someone mention dinosaurs?

Some women. Its wrong to assume all women do though. You could end up in court.

I don't really get how Paddy Jackson's language was in anyway bad in those WhatsApp groups. All he said was "there were more flutes than the 12th of July". That is a top quality joke.

Yeah_Right

jm08 wrote: »

As I've already explained, lie down with dogs, you pick up fleas.

The rugby lads are dogs? So the girls who were hanging out with them and went home with them are getting fleas??

jm08

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

And as was pointed out, didn't the accuser describe the girls as SLUTS. Any thoughts or views on this?

No, she did not describe them as SLUTS.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Some women. Its wrong to assume all women do though. You could end up in court.

Precisely why I said 'some women'.

Are you going to withdraw you slur that they have that attitude to all women?

jm08

Yeah_Right wrote: »

The rugby lads are dogs? So the girls who were hanging out with them and went home with them are getting fleas??

Its a universal proverb which means:

The quote has a large almost universally agreed meaning of "You should be cautious of the company you keep. Associating with those of low reputation may not only lower your own but also lead you astray by the faulty assumptions, premises and data of the unscrupulous."

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

No, she did not describe them as SLUTS.

What do sluts do?

They behave like sluts. = slutty behaviour.


Isn't this awkward for you?

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What do sluts do?

They behave like sluts. = slutty behaviour.


Isn't this awkward for you?

It depends on your definition of slutty behaviour. Her one was they were messing around sitting on the lads laps taking selfies (as far as I can remember).


Now what is your definition of slutty behaviour?

DavidLyons_

jm08 wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

And as was pointed out, didn't the accuser describe the girls as SLUTS. Any thoughts or views on this?

No, she did not describe them as SLUTS.

I'd have thought only sluts are SLUTTY.

No point trying to deflect. Sh1t or get off the pot please.

Yeah_Right

jm08 wrote: »

Its a universal proverb which means:

Really! Wow! I did not know that.

:rolleyes:

I am curious about whether you apply it to the girls from that night. Afterall they were associating with these guys, they went home with them, kissed them etc. Should we be judging them because of the company they chose to keep?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

It depends on your definition of slutty behaviour. Her one was they were messing around sitting on the lads laps taking selfies (as far as I can remember).


Now what is your definition of slutty behaviour?

It covers a lot of behaviour. And it isn't relevant here.

So let me get this straight: You would object to your daughter being called a 'slut' but not if she was accused of 'behaving like a slut'?

Slut on it's own is the problem? That somehow is descriptive of more serious behaviour?

Stop digging I suggest.

jm08

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Really! Wow! I did not know that.

:rolleyes:

I am curious about whether you apply it to the girls from that night. Afterall they were associating with these guys, they went home with them, kissed them etc. Should we be judging them because of the company they chose to keep?

Prior to that night, PJ & SO would have had a high standing in the community. I'd imagine most women will be giving them a wide birth from now on.

DavidLyons_

jm08 wrote: »

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Really! Wow! I did not know that.

:rolleyes:

I am curious about whether you apply it to the girls from that night. Afterall they were associating with these guys, they went home with them, kissed them etc. Should we be judging them because of the company they chose to keep?

Prior to that night, PJ & SO would have had a high standing in the community. I'd imagine most women will be giving them a wide birth from now on.

You'd imagine wrong. Sure Jackson's ex from before the night in question has already sought him out and rekindled the romance, it's been reported.

I think you'll find the solidarity amongst the sisterhood only goes so far when it comes to rich and/or famous men.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It covers a lot of behaviour. And it isn't relevant here.

So let me get this straight: You would object to your daughter being called a 'slut' but not if she was accused of 'behaving like a slut'?

Slut on it's own is the problem? That somehow is descriptive of more serious behaviour?

Stop digging I suggest.

It is relevant here. Why would you call anyone a slut? Why would you invite 'sluts' back to your house?

DavidLyons_

jm08 wrote: »

Why would you invite 'sluts' back to your house?

Really? Lordy, Lordy.

_Whimsical_

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Utterly disgraceful and defamatory post.

Catch a hold of yourself.

Defamatory how?

A paralel drawn between 2 cases where no one was convicted but in both cases men left a women they purported to believe had consented to sex bleeding and hysterically crying in public.
Nothing defamatory there. They are the established facts of both cases.

jm08

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

You'd imagine wrong. Sure Jackson's ex from before the night in question has already sought him out and rekindled the romance, it's been reported.

I think you'll find the solidarity amongst the sisterhood only goes so far when it comes to rich and/or famous men.

How do you know she sought him out? Are you PJ or a friend of his or are you assuming that she sought him out.


NI is hardly to the fore when it comes to human rights, respect for women etc. Women know their place up there.

DavidLyons_

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Utterly disgraceful and defamatory post.

Catch a hold of yourself.

Defamatory how?

A paralel drawn between 2 cases where no one was convicted but in both cases men left a women they purported to believe had consented to sex bleeding and hysterically crying in public.
Nothing defamatory there. They are the established facts of both cases.

Insinuating guilt against the men in each case despite their acquittal. If I were the subject in either case I would assume you had defamed me.

Blazer

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Defamatory how?

A paralel drawn between 2 cases where no one was convicted but in both cases men left a women they purported to believe had consented to sex bleeding and hysterically crying in public.
Nothing defamatory there. They are the established facts of both cases.

This is what you said.
In fact she was shown on CCTV to be extremely calm, giving a gentle shove to the boy and a peck. At no point was she crying hysterically and bleeding :rolleyes:
She also have multiple discrepancies in her story making a conviction extremely unsafe.
What you have posted below is a complete lie and extremely libellous.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The lack of conviction hinged on the fact that afterwards she walked back up the road with the boy in question and allowed him give her a brief kiss...while crying hysterically and bleeding from the head and vagina.

There's something very wrong with some young men and the justice system.

The idea that there are men walking around there who can have sex and leave a woman bleeding and hysterically crying and assume a good night has been had by all is really frightening.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

It is relevant here. Why would you call anyone a slut? Why would you invite 'sluts' back to your house?

I wouldn't call anyone a slut. That is my own code and it does not apply to anyone else.
I would have an opinion of somebody who gets blind drunk and finds their way on their own to a man she didn't know house, who finds her way into a man's bedroom a number of times.

If I went to a nightclub looking for someone who was prepared to be a slut-behave sluttily for a few hours I don't see why I wouldn't invite them to my house.

Are you going to answer my question now?

Heres Johnny

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

The Donegal rape case that's been in the media reminded me of this case. I assumed it's why it was back again.

There another male was found innocent of rape despite leaving a girl he'd just had sex with bleeding, injured, crying and what witnesses described as hysterical in public.

On this occasion, the girl left with severe head injuries and vaginal injuries that medical exams found were not consistent with any consensual act. During the rape a car arrived in the area and while the male asked the driver to leave the victim rang and texted a friends begging for help but he returned. Those texts were entered as evidence.

The lack of conviction hinged on the fact that afterwards she walked back up the road with the boy in question and allowed him give her a brief kiss...while crying hysterically and bleeding from the head and vagina.

There's something very wrong with some young men and the justice system.

The idea that there are men walking around there who can have sex and leave a woman bleeding and hysterically crying and assume a good night has been had by all is really frightening.

I read reports about that and I think you've made most of your post up.
Another man not found guilty. Jurys and judges are acquitting these guys but the amateur experts keep spouting nonsense because you don't agree.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wouldn't call anyone a slut. That is my own code and it does not apply to anyone else.
I would have an opinion of somebody who gets blind drunk and finds their way on their own to a man she didn't know house, who finds her way into a man's bedroom a number of times.

If I went to a nightclub looking for someone who was prepared to be a slut-behave sluttily for a few hours I don't see why I wouldn't invite them to my house.

Are you going to answer my question now?

So you personally wouldn't call someone a slut. How did it become your code? If someone is behaving (in your opinion) in a slutty way, why would you not call them a slut if they deserve it (in your opinion). What is stopping you calling them a slut?


Ah, so just because she went into PJ's bedroom, it is automatically assumed she wanted to have sex with PJ and the rest of his friends. She was 19 years old. What did she do to indicate that while going into PJ's bedroom, that she was up for having sex with the rest of them?


The girl showed poor judgement having anything to do with them as they were obviusly very drunk and wouldn't have known what they were doing. Mitigating circumstances though - she was 19 years old. Mitigating circumstances for the lads - they were drunk - but that is not an excuse as its something in their control.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

So you personally wouldn't call someone a slut. How did it become your code? If someone is behaving (in your opinion) in a slutty way, why would you not call them a slut if they deserve it (in your opinion). What is stopping you calling them a slut?

I find the word awkward for me, doesn't sound right. I prefer hussy or slattern.

Ah, so just because she went into PJ's bedroom, it is automatically assumed she wanted to have sex with PJ and the rest of his friends. She was 19 years old. What did she do to indicate that while going into PJ's bedroom, that she was up for having sex with the rest of them?


The girl showed poor judgement having anything to do with them as they were obviusly very drunk and wouldn't have known what they were doing. Mitigating circumstances though - she was 19 years old. Mitigating circumstances for the lads - they were drunk - but that is not an excuse as its something in their control.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Would I be advising my daughter not to get blind drunk and not to then accept an invitation to go alone to a strangers house and not to go into other men's bedroom's' by jesus I certainly would be.Would you not?

Because if you would do that(warn your daughter) you would be doing it because you think it is the wrong thing for a young girl to be doing.

The jury decided there was no rape btw, so unless you were there you know nothing extra about the events and who did what.

Can you answer my question now?

tritium

jm08 wrote: »

So you personally wouldn't call someone a slut. How did it become your code? If someone is behaving (in your opinion) in a slutty way, why would you not call them a slut if they deserve it (in your opinion). What is stopping you calling them a slut?


Ah, so just because she went into PJ's bedroom, it is automatically assumed she wanted to have sex with PJ and the rest of his friends. She was 19 years old. What did she do to indicate that while going into PJ's bedroom, that she was up for having sex with the rest of them?


The girl showed poor judgement having anything to do with them as they were obviusly very drunk and wouldn't have known what they were doing. Mitigating circumstances though - she was 19 years old. Mitigating circumstances for the lads - they were drunk - but that is not an excuse as its something in their control.

Jesus I’d hoped this thread had died for good.

Just to be clear though, Jackson’s evidence was that the complainant actually initiated sexual activity, after going back to a drunk Jackson’s room. In general is it really only “poor judgement” to initiate sexual activity with someone who is clearly drunk?

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I find the word awkward for me, doesn't sound right. I prefer hussy or slattern.

Yea, its a horrible pejoritave word.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Would I be advising my daughter not to get blind drunk and not to then accept an invitation to go alone to a strangers house and not to go into other men's bedroom's' by jesus I certainly would be.Would you not?


Because if you would do that(warn your daughter) you would be doing it because you think it is the wrong thing for a young girl to be doing.

And would you be telling your son that if he is giving out invitations to strange young women while drunk outside a nightclub that he should not be inviting this unknown woman & his friends into his bedroom.

The jury decided there was no rape btw, so unless you were there you know nothing extra about the events and who did what.

Can you answer my question now?

The jury did not say there was no rape, just that there was a reasonable doubt that there was no a rape.


I know because we got a blow by blow account of the court case.


I've forgotten what question you asked.