Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…101102104106107…316

Comments

  • #3092
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭goz83


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    What national team does she represent?

    You reckon his life is better or worse since the accusation?


  • #3093
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    SAMTALK wrote:
    Sorry maybe I didnt explain well enough. I meant "general" attention of the case not the personal.

    I'm not sure I understand you? Are you saying that the personal attention, labelling of slut and liar doesn't matter because the general attention, #ibelieveher is worth it? Maybe I'm getting you wrong with that?


  • #3094
    cloudatlas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭cloudatlas


    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.

    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.


  • #3095
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    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?

    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?


  • #3096
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #3097
    joe swanson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭joe swanson


    Have to say, I find this I believe her campaign quite disconcerting. These men have been found not guilty in a court of law.

    There would be absolute uproar if a woman had been found not guilty of a sexual crime and men then started a campaign similar to this.

    The people involved in this 'campaign' should be ashamed of themselves.


  • #3098
    MarinersBlues
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭MarinersBlues


    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.
    The irony is that a lot of the people "protesting" The verdict would also join a protest against prejudice.


  • #3099
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    Guy:Incognito wrote:
    Who is being labelled a slut and a liar? Have you a name...................

    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.


  • #3100
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73,929 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    You are assuming she falsely accused them.

    I wasn't talking about this case specifically.


  • #3101
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,225 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    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.

    And if Jackson logs on he will see people denying he is innocent. But I guess thats OK.


  • Advertisement
  • #3102
    irishman86
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    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


  • #3103
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    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.


    I still doubt that this case will cause a lot of false accusations just for attention, no matter how crazy you think the population are. The suggestion was that it will inspire people is ludicrous.


  • #3104
    razorblunt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    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

    Rape covers digital penetration too. They didn't find any proof he had sex though.
    If he couldn't get it up, he might just been, you know, back there. The position then made it look like he was.


  • #3105
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    goz83 wrote:
    You reckon his life is better or worse since the accusation?

    Worse. What's that got to do with it? The case you are talking about didn't include a public figure so it's understandable why it didn't get as much publicity.


  • #3106
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.

    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 ****.


  • #3107
    tritium
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,793 ✭✭✭tritium


    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/

    Pretty sure there’s very few arguing that shouldn’t have been a (non suspended) jail sentence

    As opposed to groups like WAR who publicly campaign for non prosecution in false accusation cases


  • #3108
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    pjohnson wrote:
    And if Jackson logs on he will see people denying he is innocent. But I guess thats OK.

    Stay on topic, I was referring to her and the attention she is getting. The discussion I was engaging in with the other person was about her not Paddy Jackson.


  • #3109
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    Don't forget the labelling of slut and liar.

    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.


  • #3110
    cloudatlas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭cloudatlas


    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

    you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.


  • #3111
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    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 ****.

    It will not be immeasurably drowned out to her. To us, sure, but it's not us that are being talked about.


  • Advertisement
  • #3112
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    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.


    Not sure why you quoted me? Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the conversation I was having. If I'm wrong then correct me.


  • #3113
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    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.


  • #3114
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,244 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Sidebaro wrote: »
    It will not be immeasurably drowned out to her. To us, sure, but it's not us that are being talked about.

    How do you know? You're assuming she even gives a **** about what's on Twitter.

    The same as peoplea ssuming things about the 4 lads in question.


  • #3115
    Mrs Shuttleworth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,476 ✭✭✭Mrs Shuttleworth


    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.

    Men don't have any interest in women who won't put out for them. That goes without saying.

    I find men boring because they generally approach women solely on that basis and with the kind of infantile talk witnessed in those text messages.

    If a woman wants a "partner" she has to put up with this cr@p at the early stages.


  • #3116
    goz83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,035 ✭✭✭goz83


    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?

    Yes, it will inspire some women. You're naive if you think it won't. I won't pretend to understand, or know the motivations of others, but I do know that some will indeed draw motivation from the type of case I posted and the main one in this thread.

    If you had to choose....even after the outcome of this case, who would you rather be: PJ, or the largely unknown girl in the case?


  • #3117
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    Guy:Incognito wrote:
    How do you know? You're assuming she even gives a **** about what's on Twitter.

    Okay, what about in her own community then? She's not anonymous there. Even if it's not happening, in her mind it could very well be. You've seen how many people in this thread think the verdict equates her to being a liar. I doubt she will just brush it all off and go back to living her life before the incident so easy.


  • #3118
    Sidebaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 178 ✭✭Sidebaro


    pjohnson wrote:
    Great answer. Who cares about the victim now?

    You jumped into the middle of a discussion I was having to talk about something off topic, what the hell do you want me to say? If you have a question for me then ask it and I'll consider dealing with it, stop with the insinuating language and be direct.


  • #3119
    cloudatlas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭cloudatlas


    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.

    Well that's the way the world works, I don't agree with their low opinion of women as common prostitutes 'brasses' etc., I found their behaviour reprehensible I don't want them representing my country. Why is it normal for young men to speak like this and okay but not okay to say you don't like it and don't want them representing your nation.


  • #3120
    irishman86
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,814 ✭✭✭irishman86


    cloudatlas wrote: »
    you want to normalise it I don't that's the difference.
    What are you talking about. This is how men and women talk about the opposite sex
    The catholic church doesnt rule us anymore, we are freely let talk about banging
    You are a prude, i am not thats the difference


  • Advertisement
  • #3121
    ShowMeTheCash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,651 ✭✭✭ShowMeTheCash


    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.

    I think it still refers back to the "Act"

    The Principal Act” means the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981
    And if you look at that

    .—(1) A man commits rape if—

    It does not include a woman.

    So the section 4 1990 Act is true but I think (and I can be corrected) it can only be deemed rape if a man does it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement