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

backspin. · 29-03-2018 11:11PM

Hoboo wrote: »

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

Is that you George Hook?

GreeBo · 29-03-2018 11:11PM

martingriff wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with you on point b that once intercourse start she can't say please stop. Maybe some on here don't know stop means stop whenever

In Ireland she can of course say stop during intercourse, but that mean that the preceding sex was rape. Just that any further consent has been withdrawn.

She cannot withdraw consent after the act is complete, which is what the poster stated.

In NI, consent is so poorly defined that its hard to argue either way, but in my "expert" opinion, the same rules would apply. It cannot be retrospective.

29-03-2018 11:12PM

Hoboo wrote: »

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

That would require an acknowledgement of personal responsibility. Not going to happen.

Women don't need to be responsible for their surroundings, decisions, etc. That's what men are for. We also get the collective guilt for anything negative that happens to them.

RuMan · 29-03-2018 11:14PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Of course you would, but even Stuart Olding's statement doesn't hang her out as someone who made a false accusation. There's every chance that she could not have been consenting but he was none the wiser. That's why he's apologising and saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

Or consenting and then changing ur mind after?

I find it hard to believe anyone could think there wasnt consent for PJ at least.

martingriff · 29-03-2018 11:14PM

Christy42 wrote: »

You keep saying it was a false accusation as it was a fact and yet accuse others of making things up.

Why should she be thankful? Do they have any serious evidence she made it up? I doubt it. I can't see how the events would ever be proven in either direction.

Innocent till proven guilty. Applies to her as well.

From what I saw the protests were about the treatment of women during these trials (such as people being able to watch the court etc.) as well the automatic assumption that the woman is guilty if a conviction is not found. This thread shows they have a point.

Please do not generalise on 1 man

GreeBo · 29-03-2018 11:14PM

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Id think he means after the consensual sex has taken place a woman cant simply go "ive changed my mind, this means you've raped me"

May seem flippant, but its an important point. She can definitely say stop or no during sex, and that should be it. No more. But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

Its not grey at all in Ireland.

Consent to a sexual act may be withdrawn at any time before the act begins, or in the case of a continuing act, while the act is taking place.

The argument here is that there was never consent, not that she withdrew it.

Its also worth pointing out that, at least in Ireland, you consent to X does not imply consent to Y. For example, you could freely consent to oral sex and then bring a rape charge if you are forced into having intercourse, or in fact into providing oral sex on other people.

How you go about proving what your consent entailed is a legal and moral minefield tbh.

Strazdas · 29-03-2018 11:17PM

GreeBo wrote: »

In Ireland she can of course say stop during intercourse, but that mean that the preceding sex was rape. Just that any further consent has been withdrawn.

She cannot withdraw consent after the act is complete, which is what the poster stated.

In NI, consent is so poorly defined that its hard to argue either way, but in my "expert" opinion, the same rules would apply. It cannot be retrospective.

One big problem with this case is that the young woman was alone in the room with Jackson and then other males entered the room completely uninvited and interrupted a sexual act that was already underway. This can very much blur the lines around consent.

AllForIt · 29-03-2018 11:19PM

GreeBo wrote: »

No its the law, not up to either party to decide.
Its specific to rape cases.

The convicted can be named after the fact, but only if it will not expose the victim (or if the victim allows it)

I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but if a complaint doesn't want their name in the papers in relation to a case not involving a crime of a sexual nature then they don't have the right to request such, if I understand you correctly.

That seems odd to me if that is the case. Why would ppl who make accusations of sexual misconduct be given that right in law when other don't - when the reason is exactly the same i.e. they don't want to be exposed publicly?

OwlsZat · 29-03-2018 11:20PM

backspin. wrote: »

Is that you George Hook?

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:20PM

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Of course you would, but even Stuart Olding's statement doesn't hang her out as someone who made a false accusation. There's every chance that she could not have been consenting but he was none the wiser. That's why he's apologising and saying he didn't mean to hurt anyone.

Or consenting and then changing ur mind after?

I find it hard to believe anyone could think there wasnt consent for PJ at least.

She could have consented to Jackson, she could have consented to digital penetration and not intercourse, once intercourse started she could have felt powerless and it all spiralled from there

I'm not insinuating any of the above is true. Fact is this case is far from black and white and that's why we're now talking about consent. The verdict was not guilty, but it doesn't automatically mean she's a liar.

RuMan · 29-03-2018 11:21PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

NI football squad dodged a bullet

prinzeugen · 29-03-2018 11:21PM

I think that if they had been up for sexual assault then there may have been a different verdict.

The major issue with the Scottish "not-proven" verdict is that innocent peoples lives are still wrecked by it.

Mud sticks.

I don't think this is over yet. I am waiting on the big €€€ tell all story to appear, TV shows etc.

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:22PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

backspin. wrote: »

Is that you George Hook?

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

Well this is just not true.

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:22PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

backspin. wrote: »

Is that you George Hook?

More daming is the fact she was trying to pull any half celebrity in Ollies married or not.

Well this is just not true.

29-03-2018 11:23PM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I have heard from a few men today 'who cares'.

When you look at how viciously women are treated in many parts of the world, you'd wonder where this viciousness towards women originated?

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Men know that women are suffering, right?

I know it is conceptually hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone suffering racism, I think that is why men turn a blind eye to all the abuse women receive.

Please try and think of what your fellow human beings are suffering. I spoke to another girl crying about being raped at the rally today.

Are you from the Midlands, Missus?

RuMan · 29-03-2018 11:23PM

Faugheen wrote: »

She could have consented to Jackson, she could have consented to digital penetration and not intercourse, once intercourse started she could have felt powerless and it all spiralled from there

I'm not insinuating any of the above is true. Fact is this case is far from black and white and that's why we're now talking about consent. The verdict was not guilty, but it doesn't automatically mean she's a liar.

No but she followed Jackson back to his house uninvited and then up to his room twice.

Was she going up to polish his medals?

C__MC · 29-03-2018 11:27PM

RuMan wrote: »

No but she followed Jackson back to his house uninvited and then up to his room twice.

Was she going up to polish his medals?

Maybe to look at his superhero drawings or to mime a rap

OwlsZat · 29-03-2018 11:27PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

martingriff · 29-03-2018 11:28PM

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Id think he means after the consensual sex has taken place a woman cant simply go "ive changed my mind, this means you've raped me"

May seem flippant, but its an important point. She can definitely say stop or no during sex, and that should be it. No more. But to have sex, give consent and later change your mind, its a very grey area.

If that what the poster meant then I agree

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:29PM

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

She could have consented to Jackson, she could have consented to digital penetration and not intercourse, once intercourse started she could have felt powerless and it all spiralled from there

I'm not insinuating any of the above is true. Fact is this case is far from black and white and that's why we're now talking about consent. The verdict was not guilty, but it doesn't automatically mean she's a liar.

No but she followed Jackson back to his house uninvited and then up to his room twice.

Was she going up to polish his medals?

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

hill16bhoy · 29-03-2018 11:29PM

Hoboo wrote: »

Is anyone going to ask why a girl would go to a strangers house uninvited and without any of her friends, with 4 drunk men, and at the house follow one of the men up to his bedroom. Twice.

Surely before education on consent should come education on personal safety?

Deleted User wrote: »

That would require an acknowledgement of personal responsibility. Not going to happen.

Women don't need to be responsible for their surroundings, decisions, etc. That's what men are for. We also get the collective guilt for anything negative that happens to them.

Patrick Freyne skewered these type of bizarre attitudes better than anybody with the following tweets after George Hook's comments. Can't link directly due to post count.

----

Have I this straight, misogynists? Assuming men might rape insults all men, but if women DON'T assume they might be raped, they're to blame

that sounds like the type of no-win situation that would suggest we have a rape culture

Fann Linn · 29-03-2018 11:30PM

Faugheen wrote: »

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

So ye get raped and ye go back up to get your bag?

jimmycrackcorm · 29-03-2018 11:31PM

Faugheen wrote:

Fact is, the defence barristers earned their money and then some, making the prosecution look like amateurs.

I don't agree that they made the prosecution look amateurish. If anything the defense comment about the middle class girls showed the opposite.

What's clear for me in this case its how easy it is for two sides to have equally valid points of view. The girl thought from her perspective that there wasn't consent while the men thought there was.

Simply because, unless there is a clear statement where someone says no then is all down to interpretation.

I think there is too much psychobabble otherwise. No does mean NO, but its a single syllable word with two letters. It's not that hard to say.

cloudatlas · 29-03-2018 11:33PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

what are you suggesting exactly, spit it out.

cloudatlas · 29-03-2018 11:33PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

what are you suggesting exactly, spit it out.

RuMan · 29-03-2018 11:33PM

Faugheen wrote: »

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

Did i say she went back up after the incident?

Did she not follow Jackson back to his house uninvited?

Did she not follow him up to his room twice?

Was she not staring at Jackson all night?

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:33PM

OwlsZat wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Well this is just not true.

Videos of her were played socialising in very close contact with both North Ireland strikers. The arm around the elbow is harmless before she ends up with her hand on the other ones thigh.

She had her hand on someone's leg? How ****ing dare she.

If I pursued every woman who touched me on the leg or wrapped an arm around my elbow, I wouldn't get with a lot of them.

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

Does it bollocks. I hate the way blokes can do stuff like this and it's grand but a woman does it and she's clearly asking for it.

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:36PM

RuMan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

She was going back up to get her bag, from what she has said.

Also, she never went back up after the alleged incident took place, just to make that clear.

Once again, not black and white. None of us know what happened but yet you're the only one trying to say what happened as a matter of fact because the verdict was not guilty.

Did i say she went back up after the incident?

Did she not follow Jackson back to his house uninvited?

Did she not follow him up to his room twice?

Was she not staring at Jackson all night?

Are you going to address any of my points regarding your accusations towards her or are you just going to keep going around in circles?

I've answered everything you've thrown at me yet you keep telling me she's a liar with no proof of it.

Pac1Man · 29-03-2018 11:36PM

Faugheen wrote: »

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

Yes.

Faugheen · 29-03-2018 11:37PM

Pac1Man wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If I hug a woman, or put my hand on her waist as we're chatting, does that mean I'm trying to get with her?

Yes.

So you're telling me what my motives are?

**** off.

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

Comments