Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

GreeBo wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

I wonder who buys all the novelty willies for hen parties?

Must be for research purposes since women are so much better behaved than men.

You're comparing a novelty willy to 'roasting' a woman, boasting about it on a Whatsapp group, telling everyone she has a loose vagina, is a sl*t...........? Seriously? Good God.

Sidebaro

c.p.w.g.w wrote:

Never said it...But I bare some responsibility because I was so drunk and thus made bad uncharacteristic decisions. The people who jumped me are still responsible.

But if you could just as easily have been jumped when sober then why is your intoxication a factor at all? That's my question.

Blud wrote: »

Evidence does not lead to a not guilty verdict. There is a presumption from the start that they are not guilty, the prosecution attempt to produvecevidence that they are guilty.

The prosecution failed to produvecevidence that they are guilty, so they were found not to be guilty.

No evidence was produced to show that they were not guilty.

Nobody proved they were not guilty.

Your outlook on this is overly simplistic and massively incorrect.

it is simplistic.

Are they innocent?

Why are they innocent?

What led the jury to say they are not guilty?

So they are innocent because the jury thought the evidence and statements did not prove guilt. Therefore it helped to make them innocent again.

snotboogie

irishrebe wrote: »

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

Well this girl was a poshy so its not just scumbags

You never been on a hen night? Your in a dream world

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking[\b]) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

That's the point isn't it. You will know when your friends are joking because you have years of context to back it up. You won't have this context when looking at a text exchange between people you have never met.

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Yeah, I think the only time it can happen is if the male is a minor.
Thus becomes statutory rape.

Unless the minor is assaulted by another man with a penis, it would still "only" be sexual assault.

Rape requires a penis on the rapist.

irishrebe wrote: »

Joking as in the person receiving the 'sl*t' remark is a) aware of it and b) receives it in good humour. If you can't see the difference between calling a good friend a sl*t as a joke and using the word to degrade and dehumanise a woman you had sex with, behind her back, then I don't know what more to tell you. And BTW, I wouldn't even use 'sl*t' as a joke and neither would my friends, but I'm saying some people would. This is not the case with that Whatsapp group. It was meant to demean and humiliate, and you'd have to be pretty dense not to see that.

pretty dense eh?

So you ignore the rest of my post yea?

Im not dehumanising anyone and I gave you examples of how women do it as much as men.

But then again I must be dense?

Classy

Lux23

Wibbs wrote: »

OK then and fair enough. Would you be OK with joking about a woman being well endowed in the chest department, or a better fit(pun intended)of having a particularly snug vagina? I seriously doubt it. Indeed I'd be willing to bet that would be seen as "sexist" and treating her like a sex object/piece of meat. The cognitive dissonance of the feminist in full view.

I don't know that I would be offended by someone saying I was a snug fit or that I had big boobs. Partner says it all the time. Now I would be offended if he said I was somewhat loose and that there were more flutes in the bedroom that the 12th of July.

Mr.H wrote: »

it is simplistic.

Are they innocent?

Why are they innocent?

What led the jury to say they are not guilty?

So they are innocent because the jury thought the evidence and statements did not prove guilt. Therefore it helped to make them innocent again.

Innocent again?

They were always innocent, just as everyone is always innocent, unless guilt is proven.

Seriously, this is not really that complicated.

iamwhoiam

Lux23 wrote: »

None of us knows what happened in that room apart from those that were there. But what we do know is that at least three of the defendants definitely have seriously disgusting attitudes towards women, and as a proud Irish woman I would be ashamed to see them in an Irish jersey again. I've heard men talk like that; I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it is the wrong message to send to the young boys and girls who look up to people like this.

I agree . I don't know what exactly happened but the men behaved disgracefully and I too would not be happy to see any of them wear an Irish jersey again. This behaviour must be seen to be wrong and the message to out that irrespective of not guilty of rape their behaviour was disgusting

Wibbs wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) and talking about a woman like she's a piece of meat to be 'thrown' home when you've had your fun.

OK then and fair enough. Would you be OK with joking about a woman being well endowed in the chest department, or a better fit(pun intended)of having a particularly snug vagina? I seriously doubt it. Indeed I'd be willing to bet that would be seen as "sexist" and treating her like a sex object/piece of meat. The cognitive dissonance of the feminist in full view.

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

irishrebe wrote: »

Joking as in the person receiving the 'sl*t' remark is a) aware of it and b) receives it in good humour. If you can't see the difference between calling a good friend a sl*t as a joke and using the word to degrade and dehumanise a woman you had sex with, behind her back, then I don't know what more to tell you. And BTW, I wouldn't even use 'sl*t' as a joke and neither would my friends, but I'm saying some people would. This is not the case with that Whatsapp group. It was meant to demean and humiliate, and you'd have to be pretty dense not to see that.

How do you demean and humiliate someone who isnt aware or privy to a private conversation exactly?

whisky_galore

Adamocovic wrote: »

Think I must stay off social media for a while.

Can't face seeing another photo of protests in Cork, Galway, Dublin about the failing of Irish law to protect victims, regarding a trial that wasn't even in our country.

Ah sure they can make-and-do placards with their Crayolas, they'll get a nice bit of sun and have a latte and a natter afterwards.

El Weirdo

irishrebe wrote: »

...There is a world of difference between joking about a black man being well hung (which many men would take as a compliment, even) ...

GreeBo wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Joking as in the person receiving the 'sl*t' remark is a) aware of it and b) receives it in good humour. If you can't see the difference between calling a good friend a sl*t as a joke and using the word to degrade and dehumanise a woman you had sex with, behind her back, then I don't know what more to tell you. And BTW, I wouldn't even use 'sl*t' as a joke and neither would my friends, but I'm saying some people would. This is not the case with that Whatsapp group. It was meant to demean and humiliate, and you'd have to be pretty dense not to see that.

How do you demean and humiliate someone who isnt aware or privy to a private conversation exactly?

Of course you can. A person doesn't need to be present to be demeaned.

c.p.w.g.w

Lux23 wrote: »

None of us knows what happened in that room apart from those that were there. But what we do know is that at least three of the defendants definitely have seriously disgusting attitudes towards women, and as a proud Irish woman I would be ashamed to see them in an Irish jersey again. I've heard men talk like that; I am not saying it doesn't happen, but it is the wrong message to send to the young boys and girls who look up to people like this.

Because they never talk unfiltered around women.

I know many lads who have said worse stuff about sex the night before with some one. Occasionally joking about her maybe sleeping with 2 or 3 of them in the same night. Mostly sports teams admittedly.

But lads aged between 17-25 say some disrespectful stuff about women and sex with them. Look at their watsapp's. They will say it's just banter and nobody is hurts because it private conversation. Most lads grow up and out of it.

RuMan

Not sure how or why it ever got to trial.
Decision to select them again or not should be a purely rugby decision.

GreeBo wrote: »

Innocent again?

They were always innocent, just as everyone is always innocent, unless guilt is proven.

Seriously, this is not really that complicated.

So you agree then.

They are innocent because they where found not guilty?

pjohnson

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

Still carrying those goalposts around.

snotboogie wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have never, ever heard a woman refer to a man in that way, no. Nor have I ever heard a decent, respectable man refer to a woman in that way. The only people who talk like that are absolute scumbags.

Well this girl was a poshy so its not just scumbags

You never been on a hen night? Your in a dream world

Yes, I've been on many. I obviously just mix with a better class of person than you. Anyone, male or female, in any of my groups of friends who referred to a person as 'it' or 'that', or a person as a 'sl*t' (unless obviously joking[\b]) or any of that crap would quickly be told to cop on.

That's the point isn't it. You will know when your friends are joking because you have years of context to back it up. You won't have this context when looking at a text exchange between people you have never met.

The context is there. Nobody IN the group was being called a sl*t with a loose vagina as a good natured joke, were they?

Benteke

wexie wrote: »

Out of curiosity what happens in the case of a 'not proven' verdict?

Does it still lead to some form of consequence as a 'guilty' verdict would or is it more a kind of 'we think you're shady as **** but just can't really prove it' type thing?

It puts the onus on the legal team for not proven the case and it protects people in cases like this were their is a strong chance they're telling the truth from been called liars and it saves them from getting vilified, A lot of people believe the girl in this case, It just could not be proven, Nobody knows what happened in that house only those who were there, The men in question come out of it looking like scum and their careers are done, It works in Scotland and it protects victims in a lot of cases

C__MC

Can anyone inform why there is protests across the country? World has gone mad. The lads are innocent, the jury spent roughly 36 mins on each charge and swiftly dismissed the charges. Some feminists living in fantasy land. It’s over, the woman has life privacy while the lads are finished. Yet they are innocent, no guilt was found.

irishrebe wrote: »

This is male privilege in full view. Ignoring the glaring elephant in the room - the power imbalance. It's like men who dismiss women's complaints about being groped in nightclubs by saying women grope them too. Yes, maybe they do, but it's not remotely the same, is it? Men don't grow up feeling objectified by women. Men don't go out and worry about getting too drunk and being sexually assaulted by a woman. But you're so settled into your victim status as a put-upon and long suffering white male that you're just not going to get it, are you?

so your argument is that, due to historical issues, forever more the same act perpetrated by a man on a woman, is worse than when perpetrated by a woman on a man?

Do I have that right?

I guess by that logic a black person can call me "cracker" all day long and a Jew can refers to Germans as "Krauts"?

Cant you see how this approach doesnt work at all?
Can a Jew call a black person a "******"? How do you work out which is the more historically subjugated race? Is there an order of merit somewhere you can share?

SAMTALK

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I agree . I don't know what exactly happened but the men behaved disgracefully and I too would not be happy to see any of them wear an Irish jersey again. This behaviour must be seen to be wrong and the message to out that irrespective of not guilty of rape their behaviour was disgusting

But if they were found not guilty and you say irrespective of this their behaviour was disgusting would you have to say that the girls behaviour was also disgusting ?

wexie

GreeBo wrote: »

so your argument is that, due to historical issues, forever more the same act perpetrated by a man on a woman, is worse than when perpetrated by a woman on a man?

Do I have that right?

Yup...that's modern day 'equality' at work for ya right there.

Mr.H wrote: »

So you agree then.

They are innocent because they where found not guilty?

Yes.
However this does not mean they were proven innocent, which you keep repeating.