nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ace2007

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

I don't normally post on these threads but really?

You are accusing ALL (to use your emphasis!) men of shockingly poor behaviour?

Do I have to point out how totally, obscenely silly that statement actually is?

Jesus wept!

I was thinking that when I wrote it - but it's a certain % of men that is unquantifiable - that would speak in a way, or send text message/videos/pics etc. that posters think are unacceptable, like the exchanges we saw in the trial.

What % would you say - if I say it's the minority - most people probably won't agree -

If you say it's the majority - again most people wont' agree, so what % do you think it is.

Obv all is not correct , however if you want to change anything, you teach all how to behaviour and not a certain corhert of lads. It is not just rugby lads that have this type of banter.

ShowMeTheCash

foxyladyxx wrote: »

In a UK court?

The chant at one of these protests what "sue me now paddy"?
I have given up trying to make sense of it.

I think this protest or rally or whatever people want to call it now and been shown to be somewhat aimless so people are scrambling to give it a narrative that makes sense.

Half the people on this thread keep talking about change... Yet this happened in a different country.... So again it is bizarre!

_Whimsical_

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

No. A rape case is taken by the state. A rape victim is a witness in the state's case then. The legal team are not there to represent her/his rights or to retain her/his dignity or support the victim. They don't even prepare her/him for giving evidence. The only time a rape victim can bring in legal representation is if they are questioned about their sexual past previous to the rape. It is an unequal match. A defendant has full preparation and a team fighting their case, raising every point, presenting things from their clients point of view. The victim has no one doing that.

Ace2007

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

I wouldn't have thought so - she's wasn't on trial, and she didn't take the case against the 4 lads, so why would she have a lawyer?

The Talking Bread

emeraldwinter wrote: »

Can I ask. What legal representation ? did the alleged Victim not have a lawyer/barrister/solicitor ?

no, it is a criminal trial. She would have had personal legal advice but the prosecution barrister represents, in simplistic terms, the PSNI (well moreso, the State)

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Cool, thanks for demonstrating that Hook did actually blame a women for her own rape.

So if I ask you "are you an idiot?"
You equate that I am calling you an idiot by asking the question...

I see :rolleyes:

emeraldwinter

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

No. A rape case is taken by the state. A rape victim is a witness in the state's case then. The legal team are not there to represent her/his rights or to retain her/his dignity or support the victim. They don't even prepare her/him for giving evidence. The only time a rape victim can bring in legal representation is if they are questioned about their sexual past previous to the rape. It is an unequal match. A defendant has full preparation and a team fighting their case, raising every point, presenting things from their clients point of view. The victim has no one doing that.

Ace2007 wrote: »

I wouldn't have thought so - she's wasn't on trial, and she didn't take the case against the 4 lads, so why would she have a lawyer?

The Talking Bread wrote: »

no, it is a criminal trial. She would have had personal legal advice but the prosecution barrister represents, in simplistic terms, the PSNI (well moreso, the State)

I understand that witnesses have no actually representation. How does it make sense to have representation in court for a witness ? Sorry if my post was confusing. She would have had legal advice and the PSNI took the case to court.

hill16bhoy

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So if I ask you "are you an idiot?"
You equate that I am calling you an idiot by asking the question...

I see :rolleyes:

"Idiot" is certainly the obvious word that comes to mind for anybody who has actually read Hook's comments and failed to see that he was blaming the woman for her own rape.

And that's without even mentioning his previous disgusting comments implying there is no such thing as spousal rape, which I guess I've now mentioned, actually.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

Rape culture suggests it is socially acceptable and the norm.

Nobody think rape is acceptable and is the norm but you keep beating that drum!

irishrebe

hill16bhoy wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

So if I ask you "are you an idiot?"
You equate that I am calling you an idiot by asking the question...

I see :rolleyes:

"Idiot" is certainly the obvious word that comes to mind for anybody who has actually read Hook's comments and failed to see that he was blaming the woman for her own rape.

And that's without even mentioning his previous disgusting comments implying there is no such thing as spousal rape, which I guess I've now mentioned, actually.

Absolutely. His comments were disgraceful.

Appledreams15

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The chant at one of these protests what "sue me now paddy"?
I have given up trying to make sense of it.

I think this protest or rally or whatever people want to call it now and been shown to be somewhat aimless so people are scrambling to give it a narrative that makes sense.

Half the people on this thread keep talking about change... Yet this happened in a different country.... So again it is bizarre!

They play for Ireland.

Grimwar

Drink and be aware. Probably not for those involved. Alcohol involved 50/50

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

Rape culture suggests it is socially acceptable and the norm.

Nobody think rape is acceptable and is the norm but you keep beating that drum!

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

Appledreams15

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Why the march to the department of justice today so?

Why don't you look at the Facebook event page organising the march, instead of asking on here?

GreeBo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Those who have a vested interest in denying the existence of something will usually do so.

Same argument about the devil, Atlantis, etc etc.

It must be very handy to use lack of evidence as evidence to support your viewpoint.

hynesie08

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

What about when both parties are that impaired??

_Whimsical_

emeraldwinter wrote: »

I understand that witnesses have no actually representation. How does it make sense to have representation in court for a witness ? Sorry if my post was confusing. She would have had legal advice and the PSNI took the case to court.

It makes sense to have someone there to rebut allegations about your character which really should have no place in the proceedings, to consult with you so you don't feel like a piece of meat while the most traumatic intimate thing thats ever happened is argued about, to prepare you to fully put your side of events across, to ensure your perspective on what happened is represented accurately, or just so feel supported while your vagina, anus, penis is discussed in detail. That sort of thing.

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

That's not how it works under the current Irish laws. They have to prove the accused had the knowledge of the given consent was not consent it's a very hard area to get your head around.

[Deleted User]

Bob_Marley wrote: »

You think binge drinking and getting into a very questionable drunken situation with a drunk teenage girl is a good idea for an athlete on the national Irish team ?

You’re loving that “phrase drunk teenage girl” as if it’s some prepubescent girl with a few bottles of wkd. It’s an adult woman.

emeraldwinter

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

It makes sense to have someone there to rebut allegations about your character which really should have no place in the proceedings, to consult with you so you don't feel like a piece of meat while the most traumatic intimate thing thats ever happened is argued about, to prepare you to fully put your side of events across, to ensure your perspective on what happened is represented accurately, or just so feel supported while your vagina, anus, penis is discussed in detail. That sort of thing.

Is that not what the prosecution is for ? Are we saying evidence should not be presented in open court ?

Ace2007

emeraldwinter wrote: »

I understand that witnesses have no actually representation. How does it make sense to have representation in court for a witness ? Sorry if my post was confusing. She would have had legal advice and the PSNI took the case to court.

Well like it's not really fair for a victim to have no representation or say prep talk about what will be said or who will say what etc. Unlike say those accused who have probably gone over a mock trial 100 times to makes sure they don't say the wrong thing.

I know there was a lot of talk about how she was put through 8 days on the stand where as the lads only had 1 day, but the flip side is that each lad had his own representation and so each barrister had the right to ask her questions. Imagine having no idea how it works and to be asked the same question 3/4 times but all slightly differently. PJ and the lads, where only asked by one barrister for instance What if say the victim had a barrister that could ask questions, and say one of the lads said something that was different from the first time he was asked it by the prosecution barrister.... to which more follow up questions can be asked.

Amalgam

The UK system is creaking under the avalanche of social media evidence. A case that really struck me was that of student Liam Allen.

A relative had to go off and download his Facebook message history and even then, the prosecution presented an 'edited' list of messages to paint a certain view of events.

The trial collapsed after the full history of messages was admitted to court, showing a totally different line of events.

I don't want anyone to have an easy time on the podium, male or female. Stand by your convictions and get through it.

Liam Allan: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-42366629

Danny Kay: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405

The 'selective' disclosure of how social media messages are impacting on rape cases means that a few hundred are likely to be up for 'review' in the UK.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

"Idiot" is certainly the obvious word that comes to mind for anybody who has actually read Hook's comments and failed to see that he was blaming the woman for her own rape.

I read the whole thing, my comprehension of the English language appears to be somewhat better than yours.
There is what he said and what you think he meant.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Ace2007 wrote: »

I was thinking that when I wrote it - but it's a certain % of men that is unquantifiable - that would speak in a way, or send text message/videos/pics etc. that posters think are unacceptable, like the exchanges we saw in the trial.

What % would you say - if I say it's the minority - most people probably won't agree -

If you say it's the majority - again most people wont' agree, so what % do you think it is.

Obv all is not correct , however if you want to change anything, you teach all how to behaviour and not a certain corhert of lads. It is not just rugby lads that have this type of banter.

A minority at the most and a small minority at that. There is a huge difference between saying 'I'll do this or that' in a particular situation and the numbers who would actually carry out the act.

In all my years in four different sports and in all my associations with relatives, friends and team mates, I can honestly say the 'banter' I have heard from my wife and her friends and my own female friends is far, far more offensive than anything heard from male banter as regards the opposite sex.

To categorise all men's behaviour as requiring 'reeducation' is, frankly, offensive and sexist and reminiscent of 1984 by George Orwell.

Appledreams15

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

The chant at one of these protests what "sue me now paddy"?
I have given up trying to make sense of it.

I think this protest or rally or whatever people want to call it now and been shown to be somewhat aimless so people are scrambling to give it a narrative that makes sense.

Half the people on this thread keep talking about change... Yet this happened in a different country.... So again it is bizarre!

Does anyone read anything before they post on here.

The headlines in all the front pages of the papers today :Paddy Jackson has threatened to sue anyone who refers to the case and defames him on social media.

This further inflamed things with
#suemepaddy becoming the number one trending hashtag on Twitter in Ireland today.

This is why people chanted it at the march today.

GreeBo

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well I suggested the first two earlier...

Not Proven may well be a red herring, thanks for engaging all the same..

The reason prime are not engaging is the lack of anything to engage.
The state goes to trial if they have a case.
The state secures a conviction if they have enough evidence to convince a jury.

That's what's required to increase conviction rates and that's why they are so low, because is bloody hard to achieve all that.

Wringing your hands is useless. You might as well go the whole hog, throw on a bikini & sash and say you want world peace.

irishrebe

hynesie08 wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

What about when both parties are that impaired??

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape.

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

More like they don't understand what rape actually is. I've seen several posts on this thread talking about women getting absolutely blacked out drunk and agreeing to sex, regretting it and 'crying rape'. Do these people not understand that a person who is that impaired is legally incapable of giving consent?

That's not how it works under the current Irish laws. They have to prove the accused had the knowledge of the given consent was not consent it's a very hard area to get your head around.

That's how it works under UK law. It is difficult to prove though, yes. Like pretty much everything when it comes to rape cases.

[Deleted User]

irishrebe wrote:

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape.

Of course. And that I assume seems fair to you?

emeraldwinter

irishrebe wrote: »

The person with the penis is the one legally committing rape.

That's how it works under UK law. It is difficult to prove though, yes. Like pretty much everything when it comes to rape cases.

But the People marching in Dublin would mostly have been from the Republic what Irish laws do they want changed ? Could you possibly provide the UK information equivalent to our laws around rape ?

ShowMeTheCash

Appledreams15 wrote: »

They play for Ireland.

And? It is a rally or a protest? What is the goal of this rally/protest?