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

Ace2007 · 31-03-2018 11:50PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

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.

I didn't say all men need re-education - what I said was that education should be given to all men, that way you don't miss out on anyone, I will now add women to that sentence. Your getting like some of the other posters in here -

Your saying that you witness the banter being worse by females including your wife? - Did you speak up about it, Did you text back and say you were uncomfortable with it, or did you like everyone else giggle at it - harmless fun, and move on?

_Whimsical_ · 31-03-2018 11:51PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

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.

I feel like the prosecution missed several points that I don't think legal representation for an individual would've left hanging.

Like why did McIlroy say he'd had sex with the girl in a police interview when she and everyone else present said he had not touched her, only exposed himself? That should easily tie in with the idea that the men met and concocted a story allocating themselves roles in a consentual act and McIlroy was confused as to his role.

Why did Dara, the girl witness, enter a bedroom where people were having sex? She had come looking for her friend who was upstairs. If she had heard normal sex noises would she really interrupt her friend having sex?
Sounds much more like she heard something that concerned her so she entered the bedroom far enough to see just who was having sex.

Why did she say she was 100% sure Paddy Jackson was having sex with the girl when Paddy Jackson claims that never happened. Th victim claimed it did.
Why was that evidence not made more of?

In my opinion there was more meat in the prosecution's evidence than was used to any good effect.

hill16bhoy · 31-03-2018 11:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Same argument about the devil, Atlantis, etc etc.

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

Oh but there's copious amounts of evidence all over this thread.

324 pages of it as I type, filled with rape culture denial.

"Hiding" in plain sight.

Appledreams15 · 31-03-2018 11:53PM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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

Why didn't you look at the Facebook event page stating the aims?

Surely that is easy to do.

I am not repeating myself again on here

ShowMeTheCash · 31-03-2018 11:54PM

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?

In cases where the women has been able to agree to sex it almost always has been deemed by the judge to be consensual regardless of how drunk they are.

In Wales a few years ago they tried to try an Irish guy for rape on the premise that drunken consent is not consent, that also failed.

Amalgam · 31-03-2018 11:54PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Oh but there's copious amounts of evidence all over this thread.

324 pages of it as I type, filled with rape culture denial.

"Hiding" in plain sight.

Yeah.. :rolleyes:

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 11:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

irishrebe wrote:

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

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

Considering that it's extremely difficult to even bring a rape case to court even when the victim is completely legless and the accused stone cold sober, and of those rape cases which are brought to court, almost all of them end without a conviction, I'm not sure this is something that you should work yourself up over. As much as I'm sure you'd love to believe that men really got the short straw in life.

31-03-2018 11:55PM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am not repeating myself again on here

Why change the habit of a lifetime.

Men in Spain = good
Men in Ireland = bad
Ireland is like India
Etc etc etc

hill16bhoy · 31-03-2018 11:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Biology can sometimes be unfair.

emeraldwinter · 31-03-2018 11:55PM

irishrebe wrote: »

Considering that it's extremely difficult to even bring a rape case to court even when the victim is completely legless and the accused stone cold sober, and of those rape cases which are brought to court, almost all of them end without a conviction, I'm not sure this is something that you should work yourself up over. As much as I'm sure you'd love to believe that men really got the short straw in life.

I would like a citation for that one please. Have you a source ? same for the rate of convictions.

Rodin · 31-03-2018 11:56PM

If a drunk woman can not be deemed to have capacity to give consent, how can Olding given the skinful he had had, be in any fit state to GAIN consent.

Or is it one rule for one....

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 11:58PM

ShowMeTheCash 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?

In cases where the women has been able to agree to sex it almost always has been deemed by the judge to be consensual regardless of how drunk they are.

In Wales a few years ago they tried to try an Irish guy for rape on the premise that drunken consent is not consent, that also failed.

Like any rape case, it's a whole lot of 'he said', 'she said'. How can anyone ever totally prove consent wasn't given? Doesn't mean that a person who is drunk can legally give consent. As the law puts it, they do not have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Proving it, is of course, close to impossible.

Appledreams15 · 31-03-2018 11:58PM

Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today.

The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex.

Common f#cking sense.

Do you want to have sex?
Yes or no.

irishrebe · 31-03-2018 11:59PM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Biology can sometimes be unfair.

But only to men, of course!

Mrsmum · 31-03-2018 11:59PM

hynesie08 wrote: »

What about when both parties are that impaired??

If he was that impaired, I don't think he could perform the act, could he ? Then again I'm not a man, maybe you are able to have sex while blacked out ???

emeraldwinter · 01-04-2018 12:00AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today.

The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex.

Common f#cking sense.

Do you want to have sex?
Yes or no.

How would you verify that happened ? Or that consent was changed after events ?

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:04AM

Rodin wrote: »

If a drunk woman can not be deemed to have capacity to give consent, how can Olding given the skinful he had had, be in any fit state to GAIN consent.

Or is it one rule for one....

Well, the man has to be capable of getting and maintaining an erection for one thing. Not 'drunk woman', by the way, 'drunk person'. If one man penetrates another man, which one do you think has more chance of being accused of rape?

Ace2007 · 01-04-2018 12:05AM

I also think one of the main things behind the marches is because of the banter of the text messages, a certain cohort of people in Irish society don't want the 2 lads going back to Ulster or playing with Ireland, and so the longer and the louder the rallies become the less chance Ulster will let them play again and no other team in Ireland will touch them, which is turns means they will not play for Ireland due to that stupid IRFU imposed rule, about having to play in Ireland if you want to represent your country.

hill16bhoy · 01-04-2018 12:07AM

Rodin wrote: »

If a drunk woman can not be deemed to have capacity to give consent, how can Olding given the skinful he had had, be in any fit state to GAIN consent.

Or is it one rule for one....

Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum.

The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel.

I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.

emeraldwinter · 01-04-2018 12:07AM

Ace2007 wrote: »

I also think one of the main things behind the marches is because of the banter of the text messages, a certain cohort of people in Irish society don't want the 2 lads going back to Ulster or playing with Ireland, and so the longer and the louder the rallies become the less chance Ulster will let them play again and no other team in Ireland will touch them, which is turns means they will not play for Ireland due to that stupid IRFU imposed rule, about having to play in Ireland if you want to represent your country.

I wonder if it registers with them that would be Discrimination ?

The Wordress · 01-04-2018 12:08AM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I feel like the prosecution missed several points that I don't think legal representation for an individual would've left hanging.

Like why did McIlroy say he'd had sex with the girl in a police interview when she and everyone else present said he had not touched her, only exposed himself? That should easily tie in with the idea that the men met and concocted a story allocating themselves roles in a consentual act and McIlroy was confused as to his role.

Why did Dara, the girl witness, enter a bedroom where people were having sex? She had come looking for her friend who was upstairs. If she had heard normal sex noises would she really interrupt her friend having sex?
Sounds much more like she heard something that concerned her so she entered the bedroom far enough to see just who was having sex.

Why did she say she was 100% sure Paddy Jackson was having sex with the girl when Paddy Jackson claims that never happened. Th victim claimed it did.
Why was that evidence not made more of?

In my opinion there was more meat in the prosecution's evidence than was used to any good effect.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

In Dara Florence's evidence, she said she opened the door to the bedroom and saw them having sex for less than a minute.

I'm sorry but if I knew someone was in a bedroom having sex, I would immediately close the door unless I knew that one of them was in distress of some sort.

I think it would be pure creepy if someone looked for that long at me having sex.

All defendants also claim that they didn't know Dara Florence prior to the night the girl was allegedly raped.

I also find this hard to believe and I think there was collusion here too.

The only impartial person in the whole trial was the Taxi driver and I think his evidence said it all.

01-04-2018 12:09AM

irishrebe wrote:

Considering that it's extremely difficult to even bring a rape case to court even when the victim is completely legless and the accused stone cold sober, and of those rape cases which are brought to court, almost all of them end without a conviction, I'm not sure this is something that you should work yourself up over. As much as I'm sure you'd love to believe that men really got the short straw in life.

If two drunk people willingly have sex are you saying that it is technically rape as the woman can't consent?

Owryan · 01-04-2018 12:09AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today.

The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex.

Common f#cking sense.

Do you want to have sex?
Yes or no.

How long before "i only said yes cause i was afraid of him"

ShowMeTheCash · 01-04-2018 12:10AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Like any rape case, it's a whole lot of 'he said', 'she said'. How can anyone ever totally prove consent wasn't given? Doesn't mean that a person who is drunk can legally give consent. As the law puts it, they do not have the freedom and capacity to make that choice. Proving it, is of course, close to impossible.

There is no legal definition to "drunk" so what you are suggesting is not legally in-forcible.

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 12:11AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Oh but there's copious amounts of evidence all over this thread.

324 pages of it as I type, filled with rape culture denial.

"Hiding" in plain sight.

Lack of evidence is your problem.

Care to show some that indicates that our society is one where rape is considered normal and is tolerated?

Perhaps you are posting from some part of India or the middle East?

emeraldwinter · 01-04-2018 12:13AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

There is no legal definition to "drunk" so what you are suggesting is not legally in-forcible.

Pretty sure in the Irish legislation that was toughened up level of inebriation can change how consent is looked at but on a case by case basis. Again in the Irish law you have to prove the man knew the consent was not real and continued.

Rodin · 01-04-2018 12:13AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Wouldn't it be some craic if there was a hypothetical case where a very drunk woman (for argument's sake let's say she was as drunk as Jackson and Olding) decided to come onto a man, kissing them first, and then decided to assume she had consent to ram her finger or fingers up a man's anus, causing bruising and an internal laceration to the man's rectum.

The reaction from a significant amount of male posters here to such a case would be tremendously interesting, I feel.

I suspect they wouldn't have quite the sympathy for the defendant that they had for the chaps during the Belfast trial.

Sure what men hasn't been sexually assaulted?
Had my arse grabbed loads of times, particularly when doing security.
The women who come in at 8pm are not the same at 3am.
Infinitely worse to deal with than the lads.

Ace2007 · 01-04-2018 12:13AM

emeraldwinter wrote: »

I wonder if it registers with them that would be Discrimination ?

who knows, but being honest, I don't see PJ playing for ulster/Ireland again - the whole suing people is just keeping the issue going on longer and longer which is not good. He may know this already and hence is suing as he has a hefty bill to pay for his legal team.

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 12:13AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Iceland has passed a landmark law on consent today.

The person must get a 'yes' from each person before they have sex.

Common f#cking sense.

Do you want to have sex?
Yes or no.

Do you currently get a verbal yes from every man you have sex with? If not, why not? Apparently it's only common sense.

Anyway, if the sex is any good there will be plenty of "yes"'s forthcoming.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 01-04-2018 12:15AM

Ace2007 wrote: »

I didn't say all men need re-education - what I said was that education should be given to all men, that way you don't miss out on anyone, I will now add women to that sentence. Your getting like some of the other posters in here -

Your saying that you witness the banter being worse by females including your wife? - Did you speak up about it, Did you text back and say you were uncomfortable with it, or did you like everyone else giggle at it - harmless fun, and move on?

You accept it for what it is, banter. You mightn't like it but the vast majority is bravado. Why would I take my wife's friend saying 'I'd ride you backwards' as anything other than bravado? Especially as my wife was present in the conversation.

Thanks for adding women to your earlier comment on reeducation but the whole notion of vast swathes of the population needing reeducation still echoes a totalitarian mentality that I would have assumed extinct since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently I was wrong...

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

Comments