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

emeraldwinter wrote: »

i find it odd that they think posting this kind of stuff is acceptable. Do courts not have a place now ?

I'm pretty sure most of these people regard any sex with any sort of rough / dominance / submission type aspects to it, particularly involving a woman in a submissive position, as inherently wrong regardless of consent. They seem to honestly believe that anything other than vanilla sex is probably non consensual. The fact that the term "spit roast" is being cited all over the place as evidence for the fact that these lads are misogynistic assholes, despite the fact that "spit roast" is an extremely common term for the sex act in question, tells us that much - they find the act itself distasteful and this prejudice is informing every assumption they make which follows on from that. I'm pretty sure that in the eyes of these people, there are no circumstances under which a man could take part in a sex act like this as one of the dominant parties, and not be regarded negatively by those folks.

It's similar enough to the Graham Dwyer trial - regardless of the verdict, plenty of people made up their minds that he was a vile person specifically because of the fetishes he had. Even if he hadn't been found guilty of murder, because he was a sexual sadist plenty of people had already decided that he was a scumbag.

The reality is that vanilla sex in the missionary position is simply not something that young people see themselves as being limited by. The fact that the lads were asking if there might have been a possibility of a threesome (which could easily have meant "any chance that the woman would be up for that", and not, as everyone seems to be assuming, "any chance we can just do it regardless") has immediately placed them on the wrong side of "good taste" in a lot of peoples' eyes.

Personally I have a huge, huge problem with this for all sorts of reasons. It's difficult enough for people to come to terms with their non-vanilla sexual kinks, without the added pressure of feeling like society will automatically view them as a monster just because of what they're into, regardless of whether it's consensual or not. There's nothing wrong with group sex, there's nothing wrong with spit roasting, there's nothing wrong with any of this provided that it's consensual. But many voices in the Irish media - for instance, those who are blaming porn on this and questioning sexual morality in general - are, whether openly or not, putting forward the idea that some types of sex are inherently negative or wrong, regardless of consent or enjoyment by all parties.

Personally, I see this as a massive problem. In fact, as a man who happens to be a sexual sub, I actually feel that I have more cultural freedom to be myself and be ok with myself than a sub woman of the same age would, because as a sub guy it's just about me and what I'm into. But for sub women, you get self-styled feminists hinting or openly stating that their kinks are inherently wrong because they reinforce the patriarchy yadda yadda yadda, in other words "what you like in the bedroom is totally irrelevant, because you're part of something bigger and you must behave with the advancement of gender equality in mind in all areas of your life, whether you personally want to or not". It's no different to feminists accusing stay at home mothers of letting down the sisterhood because they're "submitting" to traditional gender roles - the fact that the woman in question might actually enjoy the choices she's made to adhere to that lifestyle is secondary to the idea of collectivism.

Basically, had this case involved vanilla sex in the missionary position, I'd bet my life savings that it wouldn't have garnered nearly as much comment or controversy. The case is attracting such huge attention because in a lot of peoples' eyes, the sex acts in question - consensual or non consensual - were themselves inherently wrong, which makes the lads who enjoyed them inherently bad people - consent be damned.

emeraldwinter wrote: »

And if they just handed out Guilty would you like that for your son ? there were 4 people in the room with the alleged victim. How should the case be handled can you give us a overview of what should happen ? And if it's actually legal.

I said further up that there are no easy answers to any of this. It's can be virtually impossible to convict someone in a 'he says, she says' scenario as there are no witnesses. I haven't suggested at all that Jackson and the others should be found guilty.

bebeman wrote: »

The woman heard moans of pleasure and then opened the door , then she was asked if she would like to join in, she declined
Never head of a rapist asking a woman if she would like to join in!

She actual specifically said she did not hear sensual moaning but a loud aggressive male moan.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PaddY Jackson having sex with the woman at the time though Paddy Jackson denies having sex with her at all.

And yes indeed to your second point, that's really the crux of it, because rapists are known to have such a clear sense of what's appropriate and stick so closely to an honour bound code of behaviour. They'd never deviate from what you have seen on the TV... :rolleyes:

There is clutching at straws, and then there is your post!

professore wrote: »

She never said that in any of the accounts I've read, and I was looking for it, as it's key to the case. She wasn't even sure if the moaning was sexual in nature. You made that up. If you want people who think about things to take you seriously on here, stick to the facts.

I most certainly did not make it up. You haven't looked hard enough obviously.

https://imgur.com/a/Ijr0u that's from an article in Fridays independent.


It was read out on either prime time or the Pat Kenny show when someone read from the transcript of the court. In her statement to police she said she heard aggressive moaning and was 100 percent sure she saw Paddy Jackson having sex. In court she called them sexual noises.
She said she heard moaning, was asked if this was sensual moaning and replied no. She then offered that it was an aggressive male moaning and later in court said it sounded like sex.



Why would go forth and open the door if she thought the sound was just her friend having sex? Her behaviour is much more easily reconciled with her first version of events to police

Perhaps you should take your own advice on making things up just to fill in the blanks.

ShowMeTheCash wrote:

So they are protesting the verdict.

It wasn't a protest. When does a march have to be in protest. People march in the St patricks day parade & its not in protest.

If they wanted to protest I suppose it could be about the vile text messages that these pillars of the community posted about the girl or their attitude & general disrespect towards women.

I did read that it was in support of the woman.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Has anyone noted the similarities in this case to that of Brian Murphy? The Club Anabel case I mean?

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but the disturbing similarities, and the seeming 'lack of justice'.
The horrible thing is the guys involved were able to carry on their lives as normal-Murphy's family, unfortunately...were sadly forgotten to the ides of time.

Even the film-'What Richard Did' seemed to try and humanise them, but really what it did was show them to be complete wastes of oxygen.

Except people were found guilty of various crimes in that case and if you believe that they carried on their lives as normal you haven't a clue .

The only similarities is the middle class nature of the accused (and the victims as well) which really seems to titillate the frothing hoard and get their ire up.

There is no one more deserving of hate and judgement than a middle class man it seems especially a young one

It is a protest and it isn't a protest. A march to a Dept of justice because of a case outside of its jurisdiction. Repeal movement getting stuck in for no good reason.

The sheer woolly mindedness of it all boggles.

the_syco wrote: »

From the article;

This is quite bizarre; for the general public to see the rape victim.

Tbh looking at the (somewhat better) approach in terms of the south I find it ludicrous that in the UK either the accused or accuser can be identified either formally or by public walk in