Sidebaro wrote: » What national team does she represent?
SAMTALK wrote: Sorry maybe I didnt explain well enough. I meant "general" attention of the case not the personal.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » People pontificating about how they know better than the jury in the case or the judge or how they "know" they were guilty or how innocent people shouldn't be allowed to resume their careers and should have their lives ruined because of false allegations or defaming innocent people online because they can hide in the mob or marching based on half arsed twitter hashtags and very little actual information . Is long past becoming boring. Focus your energy on people that have actually committed crimes if that's what you want to do with your life and leave people that have be fairly tried to get on with their lives. There's a lot wrong with pursuing people based on your own I'll informed opinions, ignoring any evidence.
goz83 wrote: I see it more like how many lives could she ruin before being caught. The fact that she was believed so many times should be seen as the screaming bias towards women in such cases. Similar story with custody rights. Who gets the kids, the house, the dog?
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » I was in college in TCD with a load of these types and the atmosphere in the class was toxic.There's tremendous pressure on women to be sexually active, at all ages but particularly in the late teens/early twenties to keep up with the gang and the belief that if don't you won't find a partner later on. I'm convinced that that period contributed in no small way to me becoming asexual in adulthood and I don't find men sexually attractive at all now. This case and what has come out reinforces that belief. The only fault of the girl here is being stupid enough to sleep with such muck in the first place.
Guy:Incognito wrote: Who is being labelled a slut and a liar? Have you a name...................
Sidebaro wrote: » You are assuming she falsely accused them.
Sidebaro wrote: » I don't but you're naive to think she hasn't been exposed to it. If she logged on to Twitter she wouldn't be long before seeing it.
cloudatlas wrote: » I don't agree that outside of that their behaviour was innocuous and that they should be role models and on a rugby pitch. Sorry.
Guy:Incognito wrote: People do things for all sorts of reasons. Some are just crazy.
Guy:Incognito wrote: Anyone who has worked in retail for any length of time will know how many ****ing lunatics there are walking the streets. Most are fully functioning people 99% of the time.
Augeo wrote: » I think Jackson was definitely having pentetrative sex with her. The witness claimed so, so did the girl in question ...... Olding who was receiving oral from the same girl claimed he couldn't see what Jackson was doing. I reckon "couldn't see" was a sort of play on words as he probably wasn't looking but was quite likely 100% sure there was penetrative sex going on. Jackson perhaps stuck to the didn't ride her line as if there's no sex there can't be rape, IMO
goz83 wrote: You reckon his life is better or worse since the accusation?
spookwoman wrote: » nope no gender gap here Remember the guy who raped his girlfriend while she slept, he got a suspended sentence.http://www.thejournal.ie/rape-sentence-appealed-norway-2487585-Dec2015/
pjohnson wrote: And if Jackson logs on he will see people denying he is innocent. But I guess thats OK.
Sidebaro wrote: » Don't forget the labelling of slut and liar.
irishman86 wrote: » cloudatlas wrote: » I don't agree that outside of that their behaviour was innocuous and that they should be role models and on a rugby pitch. Sorry. Wont someone please think of the children :rolleyes: Welcome to 2018 gramps, people talk like that all the time in private
Guy:Incognito wrote: It'll be immeasurably drowned out by all the people going on about how the 4 lads (ffs) are rapists and how the whole legal system is a disgrace for her having to take the stand or having to go through a trial at all and mountains or ibelieveher. From casually browsing my Twitter feed a couple of times it's overwhelmingly in support of her and no calling her a liar or a slut. Before you dive in with an example I'm not saying no one said it, but the vast majority of people making themselves known are I believeher ****.
Assetbacked wrote: The possibility that she would want to be gangbanged, be penetrated in every hole possible and degraded is non-existent to people. Why? It’s kinky sex; people love it and do not need to feel guilty for it. We don’t know her situation, perhaps her fear of being named publicly with videos and the witness telling people was too strong so tentatively went down the path of “it wasn’t consensual†but then it snowballed. We don’t know though and I’m not spreading that around unlike #IBelieveHer attention seeking ignorant fools who seem to have a proper insight into the girl’s mind. It really is so pathetic and misguided.
cloudatlas wrote: » you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.
Sidebaro wrote: » It will not be immeasurably drowned out to her. To us, sure, but it's not us that are being talked about.
professore wrote: » Pressure from whom? Who is telling young women the way to get a partner later in life is to sleep around? Guys who want to sleep with them? Well what else are they going to say? What kind of gang encourages everyone to sleep around? Some sort of sex cult? This is the debate we should be having.
Sidebaro wrote: » And you think this attention is something that will inspire women now? The thrill of getting caught? That's a real danger from the fallout of this case?
Guy:Incognito wrote: How do you know? You're assuming she even gives a **** about what's on Twitter.
pjohnson wrote: Great answer. Who cares about the victim now?
Guy:Incognito wrote: » cloudatlas wrote: » you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference. Nobody starts out on the road to being a professional sports person with the hopes of being a role model to kids. At the stage they start they are kids themselves. They shouldn't be forced to take on a role model position against their will just because of their job. Just like it shouldn't be assumed a woman in a traditionally man role wants to be thrust in to the spotlight as the poster girl for feminists everywhere and be made to do it.
Arne_Saknussem wrote: » As far as i understand it women can commit rape, but only to other women. A woman cannot rape a man under our current laws(statutory rape not included), the most serious crime she can commit to a man is aggravated sexual assault. 4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4 ” means a sexual assault that includes— (a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or (b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person. Open to correction.
