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

hynesie08 · 01-04-2018 12:16AM

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.

Not today though, over a week ago, your international news sharing friends are slacking.....

And as asked how long before someone claims the yes was under duress.

hynesie08 · 01-04-2018 12:18AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

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 ???

Yeah, most lads I know would be able to start, it's the finishing that's usually the issue. Everybody's different though.

ShowMeTheCash · 01-04-2018 12:18AM

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.

Are you being serious?
For a start if that happened there would not even be a trail.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:18AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 12:18AM

Owryan wrote: »

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

It's a pointless law change anyway, probably trying to avoid a march by the purple haired brigade.

It's all still he said/she said, unless you are getting it on film.

Hmm, maybe porn is onto something after all...

degsie · 01-04-2018 12:20AM

GreeBo wrote: »

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?

I detect a hint xenophobia in that comment.

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 12:20AM

GreeBo wrote: »

I propose no trials without substantial evidence.

What do you suggest will increase conviction rates? Jail more men?

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

Curly Judge · 01-04-2018 12:21AM

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.

A good, but perhaps unromantic, suggestion.
It still leaves uncertainty out there though, as either side can lie about it afterward and we are back to square one.
Tape recordings and signed copies anyone?

Ace2007 · 01-04-2018 12:22AM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

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...

Ok, so how would you go about changing the way a "small minority" of males and females speak about the opposite sex. Considering you view it as "Bravado" among friends and don't speak up?

The way I suggested is you included everyone that way you don't miss anyone, but yet you seem offended?

I'm giving you a possible solution whereas you are trying to deny a problem exists and won't provide an alternative solution?

_Dara_ · 01-04-2018 12:23AM

GreeBo wrote: »

These 4 men were brought to justice also, yet we have these lunatic protests.
You do know that justice doesn't mean imprison men without evidence...right?

Greebo, read my posts. I DON’T agree with these protests and I AGREED with the verdict. I made a heavily-thanked post on the first page of this thread that says so.

The post you quoted there was me addressing the whataboutery of people bringing up Muslim gangs in the UK and why people aren’t protesting that. I don’t agree with these protests but whataboutery like that is moronic.

You know how to read threads, right?

emeraldwinter · 01-04-2018 12:23AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

Where is this coming from ? Figures, Or is it it's not reported but actually reported but not taken to the police ?

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:23AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

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.

Are you being serious?
For a start if that happened there would not even be a trail.

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

ShowMeTheCash · 01-04-2018 12:26AM

irishrebe wrote: »

No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.

Point me to the legal definition of "drunk" in the statue book.
Is it drunk or extremely drunk?
Where is the bar here? Is a little drunk ok???

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:27AM

Curly Judge wrote: »

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.

A good, but perhaps unromantic, suggestion.
It still leaves uncertainty out there though, as either side can lie about it afterward and we are back to square one.
Tape recordings and signed copies anyone?

I think it will end up going that way, honestly. Almost everyone has a voice recorder on their smartphone now. And I'm sure when this becomes a requirement, the 'hysterical looney left wing green haired nutters' will be blamed, and not the small minority of people who don't understand the concept of boundaries or consent.

emeraldwinter · 01-04-2018 12:27AM

irishrebe wrote: »

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

I'm confused who thinks sexual assault is ok ? Why is there this men vs women. If sexual assault happens people go to jail.

Curly Judge · 01-04-2018 12:28AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

Unsubstantiated BS!
There may be a 100 girls who wake up the next morning and decide, retrospectively, that they have been raped.
Hardly the same thing?

salmocab · 01-04-2018 12:28AM

I've had an idea for an app, 'i consent' I am going to be a millionaire. basically the phones can connect via blue tooth then in the heat of passion the couple can create a password together and also sign off on a safe word.

ShowMeTheCash · 01-04-2018 12:28AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well convicting more rapists above the 6/7% rate we are currently achieving would be a start...that is 6/7% of REPORTED Rapes/sexual assaults....we should be prepared if we can convince the many more women who have suffered in silence for that rate to get worse before it gets better....

There is a good chance there is about 100 rapes/serious sexual assaults in this country every week....locking up 6/7 rapists a week is nowhere near good enough...

A good chance?

Of the reported rape cases what % of them do you think are not rape?

degsie · 01-04-2018 12:28AM

irishrebe wrote: »

I think it will end up going that way, honestly. Almost everyone has a voice recorder on their smartphone now. And I'm sure when this becomes a requirement, the 'hysterical looney left wing green haired nutters' will be blamed, and not the small minority of people who don't understand the concept of boundaries or consent.

Time for a 'consent' app?

01-04-2018 12:29AM

degsie wrote:

Time for a 'consent' app?

I was hacked....

I was going to withdraw my consent half way through but I was out of coverage...

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:30AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No legal definition of drunk? I think you'll find there is. If the evidence points to the victim being extremely drunk then, yes it is enforceable. For example, if he or she is caught on CCTV staggering around, unable to support themselves on a wall, or if witnesses state that they were so intoxicated that they were slurring words and unable to speak coherently, then yes, there is a clear case for being too drunk to consent. The problem arises when there is little to no evidence.

Point me to the legal definition of "drunk" in the statue book.
Is it drunk or extremely drunk?
Where is the bar here? Is a little drunk ok???

So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.

[font=Georgia, serif]A person is “drunk” when he is so far under the Influence of liquor that his passions are visibly excited or his judgment impaired, or when his brain is so far affected by potations of liquor that his intelligence. sense-perceptions, judgment, continuity of thought or of ideas, speech, and co-ordination of volition with muscular action(or some of these faculties or processes) are impaired or not under normal control.State v. Pierce. 65 Iowa. 85. 21 N. W. 195; Elkin v. Buschner (Pa.) 16 Atl. 104; Sapp v.State, 116 Ga. 1S2, 42 S. E. 411; Ring v. Ring, 112 Ga. 854, 38 S. E. 330; State v.Savage, 89 Ala. 1, 7 South. 183, 7 L. R. A. 426; Lewis r. Jones, 50 Barb. (N. T.) 667.[/font]

Mrsmum · 01-04-2018 12:31AM

I think it is a pity that people seem to view looking for consent numerous times while having sex as suspicious or a chore when they should see it as enhancing the experience and a normal part of the sexual dance. It almost seems like peoples' sexual experience is so poor and lacking any communication that they may as well just be pumping a blown up doll.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:31AM

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

I'm confused who thinks sexual assault is ok ? Why is there this men vs women. If sexual assault happens people go to jail.

Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?

Rodin · 01-04-2018 12:31AM

irishrebe wrote: »

So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.

That definition only appears to cover men. And Americans.

_Dara_ · 01-04-2018 12:32AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Of course it is. There are always saps around. Idiots like that don't represent all women any more than misogynist trolls speak for all men.

Well, you know, that person was still at the protest, waving that moronic banner. It’s a public act and people will comment on it.

As for us not all being a hive mind - I agree. But there has been a LOT of speaking of behalf of ALL women by many #IBelieveHer commentators across social media in the last few days. In that context, a banner that tars all men is problematic.

Strazdas · 01-04-2018 12:33AM

A bit of actual news among all the debate. Tomorrow's Irish Mail on Sunday reports that Ulster and Ireland winger Craig Gilroy was the person who sent the "Any sluts get f***ed?" text message to Stuart Olding.

emeraldwinter · 01-04-2018 12:33AM

irishrebe wrote: »

Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?

Are you saying the cases that fail to lead to a conviction are wrong ?

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:33AM

Rodin wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

So clever and yet can't do your own research or even a bit of googling? Since you seem to think I'm your butler, here's one definition.

That definition only appears to cover men.

Yes, because historically, society was so sexist that women weren't even referred to as people at all, most of the time. 'He' was the default pronoun. I suppose that's also women's fault, is it?

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 12:34AM

emeraldwinter wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Are you five? There's 327 pages of dicussion on this forum alone and that's your comment? If sexual assault happens people go to jail?

Are you saying the cases that fail to lead to a conviction are wrong ?

I'm saying you have to be seriously thick to believe that all cases of sexual assault (or any crime, really) lead to convictions.

ShowMeTheCash · 01-04-2018 12:35AM

irishrebe wrote: »

And neither would there have been if the victim had just been fingered. A more apt comparison would be if the situation was exactly the same and the victim was male. He got touchy feely and huggy, being extremely drunk, and one of the lads took it as a come-on and started sexual activity. Several more lads then entered the room and proceeded to have sex with the victim. He takes it to court and none of them are convicted because there's no proof he wasn't up for it. I wonder then would there be so much sympathy for the rugby lads? Seems to me that a lot of people struggle with having empathy for a victim in a situation they are statistically extremely unlikely to ever be in.

You have literally lost you mind! As has the other OP.

You main issue is you think these guys are guilty and should of been found guilty as this is the narrative you are taking.

But lets take this narrative, so if this was a gay man who has went back with 4 gay rugby players are you suggesting that men would have more sympathy for a guy saying he was raped than a woman?

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

Comments