Silentcorner wrote: » The only thing that shocks me about this thread...is how threatened men (and some woman) seem to be at the suggestion that we take great shame on our rape conviction rates.....
Silentcorner wrote: » They did not.... The young lady was like any other rape case was treated as a witness in her own trial....it is perverse...
Mickeroo wrote: » Do you think a murder victim's clothing shouldn't be allowed in court too?
Omackeral wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » So if it didn't happen to you, it didn't happen. You do realise we're two different people, from two different areas, and that people's lives and realities can be....different? But if it makes you feel clever to dismiss an account of sexual harassment, go ahead and do so. I'll never understand your mentality. It was the everyday and random aspect of it that made it tough to believe. Everyday from the age of 11 up. Well I’ll say this, it’s harrowing if it’s true. And if it is I’m sorry. It didn’t happen me or my family or friends that I know about growing up but you’re right, everyone is different. If it genuinely happened you everyday from strangers then you were very unlucky and I apologise if my original doubts upset you.
irishrebe wrote: » So if it didn't happen to you, it didn't happen. You do realise we're two different people, from two different areas, and that people's lives and realities can be....different? But if it makes you feel clever to dismiss an account of sexual harassment, go ahead and do so. I'll never understand your mentality.
Bob_Marley wrote: Do you really think that if your wife / sister / mother /daughter was raped, her underwear should be passed around in court while the accused's is not ? Would you have the big grin then ?
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » The State is the Guardian of the rule of law. That is why the DPP/PPSNI take cases against accused in every case. In Rape, Murder, GBH cases et al. If she had her own private legal representation, it would be a civil case. Not criminal. What do you not understand about that?
Tell me how wrote: » Her underwear was evidence, there's wasn't. For obvious reasons. It sounds bawdy but it wasn't like there was whispering and giggling. And only jury and barristers were involved. What other way could evidence have been reviewed?
Nermal wrote: » Your shame isn't threatening, but your hare-brained suggestions on how to undermine the basic principles of an adversarial justice system are.
John4Edinburgh wrote: » optogirl wrote: » Is that a fact? I can't believe that you honestly think this. How absolutely dismissive and horrific a thing to say to rape victims, male and female. It is not a fact it is merely my opinion. This girl ended up drunk and in an orgy with a few guys in the bedroom of an international rugby personality. I would be absolutely and utterly disgusted if a daughter of mine ended up in the same location and then cried rape. You have no business ending up in a bedroom of a rugby star, drunk. Sorry but please start taking some personal responsibility for where you end up at the end of a night.
optogirl wrote: » Is that a fact? I can't believe that you honestly think this. How absolutely dismissive and horrific a thing to say to rape victims, male and female.
suicide_circus wrote: » Eh....what? You don't think people who bring accusations of rape should be cross examined?
Bob_Marley wrote: Who was actually on trial ?
Fann Linn wrote: » Not threatened at all. Just shocked at some suggestions that there should be a somewhat lesser burden of proof so that conviction rates might increase.
Silentcorner wrote: » Ok genius...what would you do to achieve a higher conviction rate of 15 out of 825 alleged rape incidents...or do you think that the rate is something we all should be proud of?
Pelvis wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Again, if you don't believe me, then I'm exaggerating and lying. The age old trick to minimise abuse and harassment. It can't have happened. They must be lying. It's too far fetched. Hundreds of gymnasts can have a doctor's hand up their vagina in front of their parents without anyone suspecting anything but a schoolgirl in a short tight skirt getting beeped at is so ludicrous that it must be false. I minimised it to my dad because I knew he'd go mental and I didn't want him to get hurt. One older man against loads of fit young men. He thought things had improved after he talked to the boss that one time. I didn't want him talking to the boss again and things becoming even worse for me or for him. I just hoped they'd get bored and stop eventually. I was f*cking 12 years old. Sorry if that wasn't the 'right' reaction for you. There you go again, misrepresenting. I'm not trying to minimize the abuse, I'm saying outright that I don't believe it happened to the extent you say it did. I'm not saying a girl getting beeped at is ludicrous at all, another misrepresentation from you. I'm saying being harassed daily over a number of years to the extent you say you were is ludicrous. And the fact you're bring up Larry Nassar in the context of being beeped at tells us all we need to know really.
irishrebe wrote: » Again, if you don't believe me, then I'm exaggerating and lying. The age old trick to minimise abuse and harassment. It can't have happened. They must be lying. It's too far fetched. Hundreds of gymnasts can have a doctor's hand up their vagina in front of their parents without anyone suspecting anything but a schoolgirl in a short tight skirt getting beeped at is so ludicrous that it must be false. I minimised it to my dad because I knew he'd go mental and I didn't want him to get hurt. One older man against loads of fit young men. He thought things had improved after he talked to the boss that one time. I didn't want him talking to the boss again and things becoming even worse for me or for him. I just hoped they'd get bored and stop eventually. I was f*cking 12 years old. Sorry if that wasn't the 'right' reaction for you.
optogirl wrote: » So sober people don't get raped. And anyone who is drunk when they're raped is asking for it. Got you.
Silentcorner wrote: » So everything is hunky dory then...
irishrebe wrote: » Never heard of anyone being bullied? That's what these lads were doing, picking on lone women for a cheap laugh. Bit of fun at the end of their boring work day. I'd bet you a thousand euro not one of those lads would consider themselves a sex offender or even a bully. They would have said they were having a bit of banter and sure, we should have loosened up. You know, the same kind of minimising being done by people posting on this very thread. Disregarding of people's boundaries, insistence that it's all a bit of fun. No thought to how unpleasant and intimidating it must be for young girls to be roared at by grown men. I imagine now many of them will be fathers, that they wouldn't want their own daughters to be subject to that, but they weren't thinking of us as someone's daughter, a child, were they? They saw pretty (not even) teenage girls in school skirts and treated us like objects to be used for their own entertainment.
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » The State is the Guardian of the rule of law. That is why the DPP/PPSNI take cases against accused in every case. In Rape, Murder, GBH cases et al. If she had her own private legal representation, it would be a civil case. Not criminal.
Fann Linn wrote: » Nopes but ill humour you. Guilty until proven innocent. Can you not see any problems with that scenario?
SeaFields wrote: » For DPP cases the state provides legal representation to complainants in rape cases if they are being cross examined.
Silentcorner wrote: » My problem, as is obvious from previous posts...is the pitiful conviction rate for rape....we as a nation should be embarrassed by it...but of course that would involve a degree of self awareness...
hynesie08 wrote: » He has no interest in discussion, just throwing some random numbers about.
NAGDEFI wrote: » BS. I'm referring to alcohol intake for both genders. If some of the parties in the north were sober the outcome might be different. Why do you assume i mean the female???
The Talking Bread wrote: » That is not what the poster said. And I haven't been in anyway opportunistic in my opinions on this thread. If anything, the opposite. Now he is comparing his comments to George Hooks?
Fann Linn wrote: » Okay, and what did your parents or teachers do?
Silentcorner wrote: » https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/823-alleged-rapes-reported-northern-14477973 If I had no interest in discussion I wouldn't be here....you muppet...
And our recently passed Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 has introduced substantial new procedural protections for victims within the trial process, and for the first time creates a statutory definition of consent – very important in those cases which turn on that precise issue.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Originally Posted by John4Edinburgh View Post If you take some personal responsibility, you will not be raped. It's opportunistic to jump on someone making these type of comments today. The mob jumps down someone's throat if they suggest responsible drinking, being careful what parties to attend and so on.
optogirl wrote: » I don't. Men get raped too. Sometimes without alcohol being involved.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4c2f272c464d99a9eee64a80fbe71a0c.svg)
