freshpopcorn wrote: » I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending. One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?
freshpopcorn wrote: » In a relationship with another men/seeking men/etc. It's not rocket science.
Strazdas wrote: » In fairness though, you're assuming the protests were about the trial result and nothing else. But it was stated at the protest that one of the things they were concerned with was how female complainants are treated on the stand by defence lawyers and there were other aspects of the trial they were unhappy with.
Strazdas wrote: » We've seen plenty of people describe the woman as a "liar" for example,when there's not much evidence she didn't believe what she was saying (she left the house in tears and was crying in the taxi all the way home).
RebelButtMunch wrote: » freshpopcorn wrote: » I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending. One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this? How do you know that all the men attending are gay?
torqtorq wrote: » Its very interesting to see that you have no other interests in life bar this 1 thread. 22 posts and counting and all on this thread. As you have a clear agenda it does make one wonder if you are in the PR.
GreeBo wrote: So what's the basis for this supposed privilege this white male enjoys?
Strazdas wrote: » He was declared not guilty in the trial, he doesn't need to hammer home this point.
Augeo wrote: » You've gone though all of their profiles on facebook to establish that?
jimmynokia wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here. Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable. What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system. I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested. You are proving yourslef to be a lost soul here, the jury is there to give a verdict,regadless of UK /BRITISH law it should be implemented. The problem is once again the foooking media and journalists which are now out in their droves and have been during the trial pushing their personal agenda on the issue and people tend to believe what is read in the papers or online so wake up and see the logic behind my comment. How hard is that to take in ffs...
Faugheen wrote: » That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here. Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable. What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system. I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested.
Heres Johnny wrote: » The ones in the clip were gay too. Any straight man getting involved in the campaign is definitely looking for the ride. I've 1 mate in a rugby team WhatsApp group who believes 100% they are innocent. But on social media he's liking and commenting in support of women. Reckons he'll get the end away no bother.
GreeBo wrote: » So if he believes the woman....he doesn't believe them. 2 + 2 = ? Why did he take it down?
hill16bhoy wrote: » "Feminazis", "lynch mobs". Cute. It's very, very easy to get tickets for provincial rugby matches, and anybody can buy them.
RebelButtMunch wrote: » I know what gay means, I'm asking how you know that all the men attending the march are gay?
Laois_Man wrote: » I see the foreperson of the jury has been threatened with arrest because of comments she made on broadsheet.ie and advised to get a lawyer. I also see there are arguments between the judge and the media ongoing whereby the media were forbidden from reporting matters discussed in the absence of the jury for fear of influencing the jury. The media now arguing this is no longer valid and saying they should now be able to report on the exchanges. This story might have a long way to run yet.
Keyzer wrote: » The trial took place in a different country and judicial system to the Republic of Ireland. That being the case, why aren't these same people out protesting about rape cases all over the world? Just because it was close to home they give a toss? You, me and everyone else on boards or whatever internet based platform discussions relating to this case are being held on have no idea what happened that night. We weren't there. She made her case, the four lads defended themselves. For every "fact" (bleeding and upset in the taxi) stated, there is a counter argument. I'm not going to be a callous bastard and start spouting crap because, as I said, I wasn't there and I don't know what happened. The only true fact is this: they were found not guilty by unanimous decision.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree.
Canterelle wrote: » Ah what’s the point. To be clear, I agree with the verdict. There was not enough to convict, so that was the only reasonable verdict. No point debating anything else with this mindset, I think it’s going over your head.
Nesta99 wrote: » Was there a general gist to these alleged comments?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » He insinuated that they raped a woman and got away with it because they were well connected. Not sure how more defamatory someone can be.
GreeBo wrote: » Sorry to burst your bubble, but she was not on trial, hence the verdict from the jury implies zero about her. People really need to learn how a trial works before spouting nonsense
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » And what's wrong with that? The jury didn't find enough to evidence to secure a conviction. Doesn't mean he has to agree. I think the defendants in this case are ugly, brutish and boring. Is that "defamatory", or as the British are so fond of prosecuting, "hate speech"?
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » Then he's saying what others are privately thinking.
Strazdas wrote: » I completely disagreed with AOR's tweet and thought it was wrong and a stupid thing for a public representative to say. However, I'm not sure at all that it is a good idea for Jackson to get into a legal battle with him.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » It really isn’t and I’d appreciate a little less snottiness in your replys. These protests can’t have anything to do with how rape victims are treated because the girl involved wasn’t a rape victim and she wasn’t treated in any way negatively. She had to take the stand and she had to be questioned. Her story could not be simply taken as gospel nor could the four lads be expected not that defend themselves. Therefore I can only assume they are simply about people not liking the outcome of the case.
Laois_Man wrote: » haven't seen them but somebody said the juror passed comments about the background of the accuser. The juror has since though made further comments that she said nothing outside the parameters set down by the judge and then had a right moan that they are now changing those parameters retrospectively She needs to just shut up
Uncharted wrote: » Eh........ yeahhhhhh! I know all of the above,but please,surely,even though it's plain for all to see that you just want an argument for arguments sake..... you will surely concede that the majority of rugby attendees do not fit the demographic of 'penis hater' rally attendees.
Canterelle wrote: » You don’t like “snotty” replies yet assume everyone is protesting the verdict. Assume the protests can’t be about how rape victims are treated. Assume anybody is stupid enough to think a person who brings a rape case should automatically be believed. As I said, what’s the point.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
