holyhead wrote: » The text messages speak of an obvious disrespect for women among the men. It can be excused as lads talk but really the messages are vile in language and speak of the men as being immature.
Rodin wrote: » Is the offence being charged one of attempted murder, assault, battery, battery with GBH, battery with ABH... A stabbing has taken place but if the assailant is psychotic no criminal offence has taken place. Criminal offence requires both the act and guilty mind. Someone may have been stabbed but whether a criminal offence has taken place is another matter.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult. The What's App texts were hardly the stuff of Noel Coward. Keep digging, I'm really enjoying the confirmation.
Happy4all wrote: » are you really that stupid or faking it? I hope for your own sake the latter.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Has a judge ever rejected a jury's findings? Because he/she thinks they have ignored their directions.
Sidebaro wrote: » I would question that given what I've seen on this thread, if you were to equate the ratio here to the ratio of the male population of Ireland.
Women disbelieved when they say they've been raped (not the trial, a poster on boards),
the woman in the trial labelled a slut and a liar, 'all lads talk like that, what can you do?', etc. I know that you'll say that's only a few but it's enough that I would question the claim of VAST majority.
I know you'll say that women are bad too, of course they are but that's not what's being discussed.
If you are blind to how ignorant a lot of comments directed at women have been then fine, I guess you don't think there's a problem but a lot of my female friends, not ones who protest or post hashtags, are intimidated by males in general.
A lot of the time it's unwarranted but sometimes their fears are proved right and it's not the vast majority of the time. The flat out refusal of this, as if all posters only know good and honest men, is as unhelpful as it is expected.
irishrebe wrote: » This is pretty much exactly how it feels to be a woman. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. It's absolutely hilarious to me how many of these opinions have been voiced ON THIS VERY THREAD, and yet a woman addressing them has some sort of victim complex?
Zonda999 wrote: » Yeah undoubtedly so, but I'm basing that IQ comment on a lot more of Boards than just After Hours though. I just think a certain type of person would prefer to read in depth about whichever topic as opposed to a short snippet basically stating an opinion as opposed to any general information or detailed commentary. Yeah, definitely more right wing but Boards is probably more representative of the country as a whole though I think. Going back to the issue at hand, there would definitely be more appreciation of the mechanics of the judicial system here though where concepts like "reasonable doubt" are brought up. I've been looking at twitter a bit the last few days and haven't seen anything like this. Moving on, while Twitter is being used to promote these "#IBelieveHer" protests that have no specific aim whatsoever, I somehow doubt Twitter is the platform to design this supposedly gender-equal utopia they purport to want to create. It reminds me a bit of that whole "Occupy" anti-capitalism movement that were camping out on Wall Street and the likes a few years back. (If I recall correctly, they were even camping out on the South Mall in Cork, being the heavy hitting Financial Centre it is). Does anyone remember those? I suspect the people supporting and tweeting the "#IBelieveHer" stuff at the moment were also a fan of that whole fad, despite probably going on to continue to use the products and services of those mega stock-market listed corporations whose very existence the Occupy movement were meant to be protesting against. Corporations like Twitter Inc, as it happens.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Does the definition change somehow? We use the same language.
Faugheen wrote: » We'll say assault for arguments sake, and we'll say I'm found not guilty (no reason of insanity involved in verdict, just plain not guilty). Are you happy to say 'oh, ok, I wasn't assaulted, then' with your current logic in mind?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » How many times does it need to be pointed out that no, it doesn't. It means not proven. Possibly innocent, but not definitely.
drillyeye wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » This is pretty much exactly how it feels to be a woman. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. It's absolutely hilarious to me how many of these opinions have been voiced ON THIS VERY THREAD, and yet a woman addressing them has some sort of victim complex? No, that is exactly how YOU feel. Your words. Stop telling ALL women that they are victims. Who do you think youre helping by pitting literally all women against all men? The problem with that mentality is that you are personally removing your own agency. And when a person has no agency they are no longer in control of their own lives......and around and around she goes. Theres no end-point or conclusion. Is it not sufficient to say that there are bad people out there, and that everyone needs to be really careful, no? Or do you think its possible to get rid of all bad people? Cos that is never happening.
jr86 wrote: » the jury don't give their reasons just a simple one or two word answer
Faugheen wrote: » I could go on, and on, but you continue to spread your ill-educated views like a good man.
irishrebe wrote: » OK, let me rephrase it. That is how I feel, how my sister feels and how just about every woman I know feels. That OK for you?
Rodin wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » This is pretty much exactly how it feels to be a woman. Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. It's absolutely hilarious to me how many of these opinions have been voiced ON THIS VERY THREAD, and yet a woman addressing them has some sort of victim complex? How do you think men feel about there being a presumption of guilt when someone claims a rape. By saying 'I believe her' you're saying 4 men, found innocent by a court of law, are liars. How do you think that makes a man feel or do only women have feelings?
irishman86 wrote: » You quoted three american sites on a case with british lawss Dont you see the irony Or wait, do you know Britain is not part of the USA There was a little war back in the day, it was quiet a big deal
Fann Linn wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » OK, let me rephrase it. That is how I feel, how my sister feels and how just about every woman I know feels. That OK for you? Excuse the pun but: 'Birds of a feather...'
Strazdas wrote: » Zonda999 wrote: » Yeah undoubtedly so, but I'm basing that IQ comment on a lot more of Boards than just After Hours though. I just think a certain type of person would prefer to read in depth about whichever topic as opposed to a short snippet basically stating an opinion as opposed to any general information or detailed commentary. Yeah, definitely more right wing but Boards is probably more representative of the country as a whole though I think. Going back to the issue at hand, there would definitely be more appreciation of the mechanics of the judicial system here though where concepts like "reasonable doubt" are brought up. I've been looking at twitter a bit the last few days and haven't seen anything like this. Moving on, while Twitter is being used to promote these "#IBelieveHer" protests that have no specific aim whatsoever, I somehow doubt Twitter is the platform to design this supposedly gender-equal utopia they purport to want to create. It reminds me a bit of that whole "Occupy" anti-capitalism movement that were camping out on Wall Street and the likes a few years back. (If I recall correctly, they were even camping out on the South Mall in Cork, being the heavy hitting Financial Centre it is). Does anyone remember those? I suspect the people supporting and tweeting the "#IBelieveHer" stuff at the moment were also a fan of that whole fad, despite probably going on to continue to use the products and services of those mega stock-market listed corporations whose very existence the Occupy movement were meant to be protesting against. Corporations like Twitter Inc, as it happens. One interesting thing is where this right wing vs left wing thing fits into the whole rape trial narrative. If we take Niall Boylan for example, who has been prominent on this subject on radio and TV this week, he is a self confessed right winger with some pretty provocative opinions. I do wonder if the Twitter storm we've seen this week is a version of the Irish left versus the Irish right.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » Men are first and foremost out for sex.
Pac1Man wrote: » You would see evidence of an assault.
Faugheen wrote: » I didn't realise we had different definitions of not guilty. From a solicitors office in Meath: https://businessandlegal.ie/not-guilty-does-not-mean-innocent-in-criminal-law Scottish prosecution service: Verdict that means there was not enough evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - Here. Anything else?
irishrebe wrote: » Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
