Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?

Seems like crying “false allegation” is the wrong first port of Call.

What?


I merely linked to data/fact that shows that false allegations are made.

Shemale

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not acceptable and I didn’t say it was. For almost every crime, there are a small percentage of false accusations. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean I like it.

9% is a long way from a small percentage.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

legally they are innocent- you have stated the direct opposite in this thread

i agree that we should be very wary of people reading their own interpretation of the findings of the court as fact.

in either direction

Legally they aren't. They are presumed innocent during the trial. That's so the trial can be fair. But the judgement at the end doesn't declare them innocent or guilty. It just says there's not enough evidence to declare them guilty.

lets say there's two hypothetical options. You can be english or irish. I investigate and don't find enough evidence to say you're english. That doesn't mean you're irish. It just means I can't say that you're english.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were innocent before the case began and that status remained after the case.

That is the term that is not being understood imo.

They were presumed innocent during the case. During a court case they have that right. So everyone walks into the court, the defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

That's only during the case.

Roger Hassenforder

KikiLaRue wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?
.

9% are false.
This doesnt mean 91% are actual rapes. The complainant/victim might well believe/think they were raped - or "legitmate" cases.
But that doesnt mean they were raped, irrespective of any conviction rate.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

They were presumed innocent during the case. During a court case they have that right. So everyone walks into the court, the defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

That's only during the case.

lol

legally we are all innocent

i mean what you are proposing exists only in your head and it is like totes cray-cray

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

They were presumed innocent during the case. During a court case they have that right. So everyone walks into the court, the defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

That's only during the case.

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

FrancieBrady

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

not quite tbh

i can think them guilty, acknowledge them legally innocent and want them nowhere near an association with my brand and theres no contradiction in any of it

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

actually we can discriminate against them in terms of career and employment. they are not in a protected group.

Vicarious Function

Just goes to show we need to be careful as to remarks we put on our phones re members of the the opposite sex. They displayed an attitude which has destroyed them, regardless as to whether they have been proven innocent from the get-go. It's that attitude which follows them now.

KikiLaRue

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Just goes to show we need to be careful as to remarks we put on our phones re members of the the opposite sex. They displayed an attitude which has destroyed them, regardless as to whether they have been proven innocent from the get-go. It's that attitude which follows them now.

This is third hand info so I can’t say for certain whether it’s true, but a friend in Belfast told me the WhatsApp group the conversation took place in was called ‘Rape and Pillage’.

Their lawyers successfully had this ruled inadmissible.

FrancieBrady

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This is third hand info so I can’t say for certain whether it’s true, but a friend in Belfast told me the WhatsApp group the conversation took place in was called ‘Rape and Pillage’.

Their lawyers successfully had this ruled inadmissible.

From the poster who a few minutes ago was rubbishing a persons 'first hand' account of a case. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

actually we can discriminate against them in terms of career and employment. they are not in a protected group.

Not with any moral standing you can't.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

lol

legally we are all innocent

i mean what you are proposing exists only in your head and it is like totes cray-cray

This is the point I realised you're definitely trolling.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

You can think what you want but that doesn't affect legal definitions.

KikiLaRue

FrancieBrady wrote: »

From the poster who a few minutes ago was rubbishing a persons 'first hand' account of a case. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

a) No, I didn’t.

b) I specifically acknowledged that this is essentially local gossip.

It seems like you think you got one over on me there. You didn’t.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not with any moral standing you can't.

i dont think they are in any position to claim the moral high ground.their behaviour towards women was despicable. I dont see why anybody would support them after knowing that.

Grayson

Grayson wrote: »

This is the point I realised you're definitely trolling.

outrageous from a poster who is trying to invent a legal position of

- guilty until in court
- innocent until proven not guilty
- guilty after court

you are, frankly, pretty impossible to troll with that kind of content

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont think they are in any position to claim the moral high ground.their behaviour towards women was despicable. I dont see why anybody would support them after knowing that.

If your child made a mistake, would that be it as far as you are concerned? Would a mistake define their 'attitude' for life?

How would you like it if that was how they were defined/treated for the rest of their lives?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If your child made a mistake, would that be it as far as you are concerned? Would a mistake define their 'attitude' for life?

How would you like it if that was how they were defined/treated for the rest of their lives?

you think this was a one-off? that it was the first time they had ever treated or talked about a woman this way?

dont bother

Grayson wrote: »

Legally they aren't. They are presumed innocent during the trial. That's so the trial can be fair. But the judgement at the end doesn't declare them innocent or guilty. It just says there's not enough evidence to declare them guilty.

lets say there's two hypothetical options. You can be english or irish. I investigate and don't find enough evidence to say you're english. That doesn't mean you're irish. It just means I can't say that you're english.

pure Hoop Talk that is.

the judgement at the end doesnt say theyre guilty or innocent!?
it says NOT guilty - ie: They are NOT GUILTY of the crimes.

NOT guilty. it's as plain as day!? what else could that "mean"?
it means they are found to be NOT GUILTY of the crimes they were accused of.

anything else doesnt matter. they are found to be NOT GUILTY.
whether thats by "Not enough evidence" - then why was there not enough evidence? cos it didnt happen? who knows - the result of the long detailed trial was that they were found to be

NOT GUILTY of the accusations.

NOT GUILTY>

why is that so hard to grasp?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think this was a one-off? that it was the first time they had ever treated or talked about a woman this way?

Which has what to do with learning a life lesson?
Can you answer the question now? You can answer it in terms of yourself as well as for your child or anyone you actually know.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which has what to do with learning a life lesson?
Can you answer the question now? You can answer it in terms of yourself as well as for your child or anyone you actually know.

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

dont bother

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This is third hand info so I can’t say for certain whether it’s true, but a friend in Belfast told me the WhatsApp group the conversation took place in was called ‘Rape and Pillage’.

Their lawyers successfully had this ruled inadmissible.

well if you knew the first thing about this case, then you would have known that this gossip is blatantly untrue - it was WIDELY widely reported at the time of trial, before it and afterwards that the whatsapp group was called "top shaggers"

and, come to think of it, neither Stuart Olding nor paddy jackson actually said anything beyond what is said in groups of lads anyway. it was other peoples input in that group that was a bit muddy, but nothing major.

who cares if they have this attitude to women anyway? does it PERSONALLY affect you? maybe the woman was everything they described her as IRL?
you dont know them?
you're making things up now to make it seem like they're worse than they are.

dont bother

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

but how can you regret something that you didnt do?
he's a rugby player, not an actor.

ohnonotgmail

dont bother wrote: »

but how can you regret something that you didnt do?
he's a rugby player, not an actor.

i'm not talking about the rape accusation. i am referring to his, and his friends', attitudes to women.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

So judge on jury you are going to be. :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope you don't come up against similar dogmatic/judgmental people in your life.

ohnonotgmail

dont bother wrote: »

well if you knew the first thing about this case, then you would have known that this gossip is blatantly untrue - it was WIDELY widely reported at the time of trial, before it and afterwards that the whatsapp group was called "top shaggers"

and, come to think of it, neither Stuart Olding nor paddy jackson actually said anything beyond what is said in groups of lads anyway. it was other peoples input in that group that was a bit muddy, but nothing major.

who cares if they have this attitude to women anyway? does it PERSONALLY affect you? maybe the woman was everything they described her as IRL?
you dont know them?
you're making things up now to make it seem like they're worse than they are.

of course it doesn't affect anybody here. What it does affect is our (well mine certainly) opinion of him.

KikiLaRue

dont bother wrote: »

well if you knew the first thing about this case, then you would have known that this gossip is blatantly untrue - it was WIDELY widely reported at the time of trial, before it and afterwards that the whatsapp group was called "top shaggers"

and, come to think of it, neither Stuart Olding nor paddy jackson actually said anything beyond what is said in groups of lads anyway. it was other peoples input in that group that was a bit muddy, but nothing major.

who cares if they have this attitude to women anyway? does it PERSONALLY affect you? maybe the woman was everything they described her as IRL?
you dont know them?
you're making things up now to make it seem like they're worse than they are.

Hang on, are we only discussing things on Boards that PERSONALLY effect us now?

No, I’m not making anything up. You need to take a breath.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So judge on jury you are going to be. :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope you don't come up against similar dogmatic/judgmental people in your life.

do you not make judgements about other people practically every day of your life? do not decide if you like people, if you would like to be friends with people, if you dont like them at all and never wish to see them again? It is incredibly naive to think we dont judge other people.