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

freshpopcorn · 01-04-2018 08:22AM

Did many show up Yesterday?
I didn't really look at it until later in the afternoon and the hashtag wasn't trending as high as it was.

c.p.w.g.w · 01-04-2018 08:25AM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Did many show up Yesterday?
I didn't really look at it until later in the afternoon and the hashtag wasn't trending as high as it was.

Was in Bobo's having food as I left, a very large crowd were protesting, holding up all the traffic...Saw one "#men r trash"

01-04-2018 08:35AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Was in Bobo's having food as I left, a very large crowd were protesting, holding up all the traffic...Saw one "#men r trash"

I bet the organisers of the march heavily cringed when they saw that protester holding up that message- whatever credibility they thought they had with their little hashtag movement got a serious dent when she arrived and held up her cardboard poster.

It was one stupid statement to make, even in private- the fact she made it in public is even more stupid. That image is now there forever more attached to her face.

Jim Bob Scratcher · 01-04-2018 08:37AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, it's worth noting that the alleged victim said the other girls were acting "slutty" (her word, not mine) downstairs and so it could be that they were all up for a little action and that that's (partly at least) why Dara went upstairs mooching. Would certainly explain why she didn't immediately close the door when she saw the three having sex and it would also explain why Paddy asked her did she want to join in. The girl's reaction to Dara however (turning her head away etc) maybe made her feel that she wasn't up for her joining in (even if the lads were) and so she left.

Here's a pic from the party for anyone that didn't see it. Was published in a few papers during the week (alleged victim not in it obviously)

If they knew each other it would have come out by now for sure.

Wonder which one it is?

c.p.w.g.w · 01-04-2018 08:40AM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Wonder which one it is?

From what I've heard it's none of them, wrong cup sizes

tigger123 · 01-04-2018 08:41AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

From what I've heard it's none of them, wrong cup sizes

So edgy!

Jim Bob Scratcher · 01-04-2018 08:41AM

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

From what I've heard it's none of them, wrong cup sizes

Makes you think what they were doing there in the first place? Milk and cookies? or a cash settlement :pac:

01-04-2018 09:05AM

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

You claimed to have studied law earlier, why are you giving me legislation from the state of Indiana in the USA?

Was this answered or dodged?

Also, MidlandsApple15 I hope you have a stack of consent forms, a nice quill pen and a few witnesses in your room should I ever be lucky enough to find myself back there.

RabbleRouser2k · 01-04-2018 09:10AM

Cyrus wrote: »

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

Silly Wabbit-no they weren't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Murphy

Any and all convictions were overturned on appeal. Nobody went to prison. (Only one person was ever convicted of anything-and he had it overturned the following year, on appeal).

And in that case, the hatred was deserved (the Brian Murphy case I mean). No convictions, a collusion regarding evidence-and some of them can be found on facebook.

01-04-2018 09:11AM

Noveight wrote: »

I've been scrolling through them for the past 20 minutes. Every third or fourth Tweet is similar to that one, firing the word "rapist" around at the rate of 90.

I'd love to see a heap of them taken to the cleaners.

For a good wash, most of them look like triggered scruffs

01-04-2018 09:16AM

whisky_galore wrote: »

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.

Quelle suprise. Absolute rent-a-mob. Same for the Marriage Ref. They just have to be seen to be active instead of just exercising their civic duty to vote. FWIW, I voted yes in the MarRef and I will be voting to repeal but these absolute loons would make you almost resent it at times. They’re the worst. They’ll possibly sway people who are on the fence the truth be told.

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 09:20AM

degsie wrote: »

I detect a hint xenophobia in that comment.

Not my problem if you don't understand the the words you are using. I suggest a dictionary.

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...

And this is the crux of it. Your solution is just convict more men. Would you prefer Salem approach or maybe the recent breathalyzer effort?

_Dara_ wrote: »

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?

I do thanks. The posted implied that the 4 men in this case were not brought to justice, just because they were not convicted.

backspin. · 01-04-2018 09:28AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I bet the organisers of the march heavily cringed when they saw that protester holding up that message- whatever credibility they thought they had with their little hashtag movement got a serious dent when she arrived and held up her cardboard poster.

It was one stupid statement to make, even in private- the fact she made it in public is even more stupid. That image is now there forever more attached to her face.

If I ever ended up interviewing the woman who held up that 'men r trash' sign I would never give her a job. Crap like that is completely unacceptable.

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 09:29AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Read your post again...

More like 100 women wake up and decide retrospectively that they have been raped...implies explicitly that the 100 women in this country (50 of whom will report the crime to the gardai*) are all making it up....

You are a right charmer you are!!

*Those who do report a rape, are subjected to a very invasive body exam, very often miles away from home.

You are right, we should just accept the accusations without obtaining any evidence from the alleged victim. Lock up those men!

RabbleRouser2k · 01-04-2018 09:31AM

According to the news papers,it's a sure thing that the two guys careers in sport are, at least in Ireland, are done.

http://www.swaab.com.au/Publications/Publications/Who-really-brings-the-game-into-disrepute

The following article covers what I've found is pretty much across the board for most sports councils, in that you don't need to have a conviction, or for someone to be brought to court to be found have brought the sport into disrepute.

Media attention can contribute to it, as well, unfortunately. As the article noted, even the injuries alone, (whether consensual or not) to the girl, are another factor that can contribute to their contracts being terminated.

With Jackson, he's already stuffed up before-the 'blacking up' incident being the main one. This looks to be the nail in his Irish career.

BrianBoru00 · 01-04-2018 09:42AM

I'm not a legal expert . . . . but I would imagine that the IRFU IF they decide to terminate the contract then it would be a significant pay off to Paddy Jackson as he didn't intentionally bring them into disrepute.

If they suggest he through negligence or reckless behaviour he could argue that he was carrying out a private act in privacy of his own home and whatsapp conversations with close friends - which would not have got out into the public domain only for the allegations that were made.

RabbleRouser2k · 01-04-2018 09:55AM

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

I'm not a legal expert . . . . but I would imagine that the IRFU IF they decide to terminate the contract then it would be a significant pay off to Paddy Jackson as he didn't intentionally bring them into disrepute.

If they suggest he through negligence or reckless behaviour he could argue that he was carrying out a private act in privacy of his own home and whatsapp conversations with close friends - which would not have got out into the public domain only for the allegations that were made.

Possible-and again, I'm not a legal expert either-have a few books on it tho (recommended by a friend-because often need to know stuff regarding renting and so on).
Again tho, they could argue media coverage comes with being the spotlight and playing for Ireland. For instance, the 'blackface' incident was also private, but was put on social media-similar to whatsapp-and then landed him in the media for all the wrong reasons. Like the link notes that intention or not doesn't matter. I mean, look at the Laois player who was dropped because of a tweet. He essentially sent it out privately, but it got into the media domain, and he was dropped. Ditto a Drogheda Utd player.

Patrick George in his paper 'Sport in Disrepute' Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Journal (2009) 4(1) 24, discusses the case of Zubkov v FINA [2007] CAS 2007/A/1291, where a Ukrainian swimming coach, Mykhaylo Zubkov, was charged by FINA (the international governing body of swimming) with bringing the sport of swimming into disrepute after footage was broadcast of Mr Zubkov having a physical altercation with his daughter during a swimming meet in Melbourne in March 2007. Mr Zubkov was originally expelled from his position as coach and barred from reapplying for admission for six years.

On appeal, however, the Court of Arbitration for Sport found that while Mr Zubkov's conduct had been aggressive and violent, there was no evidence to prove that his actions brought the sport of swimming into disrepute. For the sport to be brought into disrepute, the conduct needed to adversely affect the promotion and encouragement of the development of swimming. As a result, Mr Zubkov's ban was reduced to an eight month suspension.

The problem as well is that sponsors dictate the sports too-if they don't want to sponsor Irish Rugby, because of Jackson or the other guy, they won't. So the Irfu could argue to pay him off, cut losses etc-but they could also say 'sling your hook'. Media coverage is one of the things where the sports council can say 'tough luck' and you've no recompense.

Also, in one of the examples given-an athlete got into an altercation with one of his children-and subsequently was banned for 6 years (reduced to 8 months on appeal). No cops were called, no medical treatment sought-but it got out into the mainstream...and that's all she wrote.

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:05AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

What a complete load of barking mad nonsense....

The problem I had with the spit roasting, was that my understanding of spit roasting was that it involves two men penetrating a woman simultaneously...one in the form of sex the other in the form of oral sex...I can't understand how the lads boasted about this, yet denied it in court?

Your sex like is your own business....I am baffled why you think you sexual preferences have ANYTHING to do with this thread...

It becomes of public interest when one party to group sex returns home, BLEEDING / BRUISED / TRAUMATISED / UNABLE TO TALK and proceeds to report an incident to the police....it is in the publics interest that anyone who feels they have been a victim to a crime...to report it to the police....

This case was not about consent despite public commentary to the contrary....it was not about a girl who got into a situation and later regretted it....it was one persons account verses 4 very different accounts...

For generations we have seen the damage caused by sweeping problems under the carpet....

BrianBoru00 · 01-04-2018 10:11AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Possible-and again, I'm not a legal expert either-have a few books on it tho (recommended by a friend-because often need to know stuff regarding renting and so on).
Again tho,they could argue media coverage comes with being the spotlight and playing for Ireland. For instance, the 'blackface' incident was also private, but was put on social media-similar to whatsapp-and then landed him in the media for all the wrong reasons. Like the link notes that intention or not doesn't matter. I mean, look at the Laois player who was dropped because of a tweet. He essentially sent it out privately, but it got into the media domain, and he was dropped. Ditto a Drogheda Utd player.

The problem as well is that sponsors dictate the sports too-if they don't want to sponsor Irish Rugby, because of Jackson or the other guy, they won't. So the Irfu could argue to pay him off, cut losses etc-but they could also say 'sling your hook'. Media coverage is one of the things where the sports council can say 'tough luck' and you've no recompense.

Also, in one of the examples given-an athlete got into an altercation with one of his children-and subsequently was banned for 6 years (reduced to 8 months on appeal). No cops were called, no medical treatment sought-but it got out into the mainstream...and that's all she wrote.

Yes but the crucial difference would be that that was in a public place - not in what is considered a private act between consenting adults....

This is probably too civil and sensible a discussion to be having on this thread - maybe we should take it to Legal Discussion

:rolleyes:

Shelga · 01-04-2018 10:15AM

This whole case is now a complete circus.

Paddy Jackson, at best, sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant human being.

The Twitter mob, and the #suemepaddy stuff, are actually making me feel mildly sorry for him in the last couple of days. Nowhere near as sympathetic as I feel for the complainant, but I never thought I’d feel remotely sorry for him whatsoever.

Imagine being held up as the symbol of absolutely everything these so-called feminists despise. Being subjected to an onslaught of horrific online bullying and abuse, from hundreds of thousands of people. Mob rule in its absolute worst form.

I’m aware the complainant has had some horrific stuff said about her too, which is vile- but 99.9% of the population have no idea who she is.

All these rabid imbeciles are going to achieve is anonymity being granted to rape case defendants. How can they not see that? They are building a perfect case for it. They are not achieving anything else whatsoever.

I’m glad they’ve brought my attention to this, because it’s something I, as a woman, would now wholeheartedly support.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 10:19AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

jr86 wrote: »

The Northern Irish team were out last night...

Disgraceful ratting them out like that. Could have got fines off the IFA for unprofessionalism

What has the Irish farmer's association got to do with anything?

irishrebe wrote: »

What's really hilarious to me is how so many men on here view these things as a 'punishment'. Attending consent classes means they are all automatically considered rapists, for example. I had to attend mandatory 'racism awareness' classes when I worked in London. Did I throw my toys out of the pram and tell them to stop accusing me of being racist and stop disrespecting me? Or did I welcome the opportunity to put myself in the shoes of people of other races and consider issues I might not have thought about before as a white person? I know I'm not a racist, so it didn't bother me having to go to that course. But a consent class for a man is assuming that all men are rapists?

Did women have to also attend those same classes? The racism one? And were other races made attend?
If both men and women had to attend, that would be fine-but too many seem to think it's men only. Consent is down to both men and women-as in clearly stating what you're cool with.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, it's worth noting that the alleged victim said the other girls were acting "slutty" (her word, not mine) downstairs and so it could be that they were all up for a little action and that that's (partly at least) why Dara went upstairs mooching. Would certainly explain why she didn't immediately close the door when she saw the three having sex and it would also explain why Paddy asked her did she want to join in. The girl's reaction to Dara however (turning her head away etc) maybe made her feel that she wasn't up for her joining in (even if the lads were) and so she left.

Here's a pic from the party for anyone that didn't see it. Was published in a few papers during the week (alleged victim not in it obviously)

If they knew each other it would have come out by now for sure.

Possibly-but then again, one could argue they were barely acquaintances-all involved have locked their twitter accounts.

What does show a level of narcissism of those involved was Florence 'delight' at the picture taken.

https://twitter.com/MariaGallagher_/status/979036629074620416

I can only speak for myself, but even far younger than they are now, I was more responsible. And I am not the only one. I don't think they quite understood the seriousness of the crime-more like they enjoyed the limelight.
Definitely a few hangers on there.

I would question the sobriety of so many involved too. Many have speculated the deleted texts related to substances that were less than legal. (Even the photo posted of McIllroy hints at something--'pay attention to his nose-hint hint'.)

Yes, of course people of all races were made to attend. It wasn't some sort of punishment for being white any more than consent classes are a punishment for being a man.

RabbleRouser2k · 01-04-2018 10:20AM

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

Yes but the crucial difference would be that that was in a public place - not in what is considered a private act between consenting adults

https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/15853/

Ah, well in that case-then there is the argument a charge alone is enough to bring the sport into disrepute.

The Court of Arbitration (CAS) decisions of D'Arcy v Australian Olympic Committee and Jongewaard v Australian Olympic Committee, have meanwhile established that if a competitor is charged with a criminal offence, then this in itself is enough to bring a sport into disrepute, regardless of whether there the competitor is later found guilty or not guilty. These cases would also indicate that the 'bringing the sport into disrepute' clauses in the standard playing contracts in most team sports are valid and allow clubs or sport governing bodies to fine and/or suspend players for off-field indiscretions.

I think Alan Quinlan has said before if players want to avoid situations, such as even autograph signings, then they have to take themselves out of the situations.

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:21AM

GreeBo wrote: »

You are right, we should just accept the accusations without obtaining any evidence from the alleged victim. Lock up those men!

Greebo...why do you feel so threatened at the suggestion that we need to lock up more rapists?

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:22AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

You are assuming it was a premeditated rape...which absolutely nobody believes it was...I do think that none of the lads thought they were doing any wrong at the time...

I'll be willing to bet that you are not familiar with tonic immobilisation either...when a victim freezes and does just enough to survive what they perceive to be a very dangerous situation....

So you are saying there was a threat of violence now?

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:23AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So you are saying there was a threat of violence now?

What are you on about?

RabbleRouser2k · 01-04-2018 10:25AM

Shelga wrote: »

This whole case is now a complete circus.

Paddy Jackson, at best, sounds like a thoroughly unpleasant human being.

The Twitter mob, and the #suemepaddy stuff, are actually making me feel mildly sorry for him in the last couple of days. Nowhere near as sympathetic as I feel for the complainant, but I never thought I’d feel remotely sorry for him whatsoever.

Imagine being held up as the symbol of absolutely everything these so-called feminists despise. Being subjected to an onslaught of horrific online bullying and abuse, from hundreds of thousands of people. Mob rule in its absolute worst form.

I’m aware the complainant has had some horrific stuff said about her too, which is vile- but 99.9% of the population have no idea who she is.

All these rabid imbeciles are going to achieve is anonymity being granted to rape case defendants. How can they not see that? They are building a perfect case for it. They are not achieving anything else whatsoever.

I’m glad they’ve brought my attention to this, because it’s something I, as a woman, would now wholeheartedly support.

I saw one tweeter complaining about the 'harassment' she was getting for saying 'SueMePaddy'....

She then retweeted this. In all seriousness-oh and starts retweeting people she blocked.

https://twitter.com/IzzyKamikaze/status/979790553666801666

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:26AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

What are you on about?

You intimated that the victim had frozen to 'survive what they perceive to be a dangerous situation'.

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:28AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You intimated that the victim had frozen to 'survive what they perceive to be a dangerous situation'.

Correct....which is what can happen to victims in all sexual assaults/rape....

Very few rapes carry a threat of violence.....doesn't mean that the victim doesn't fear danger....come on...

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 10:30AM

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

IrishRebe = hill16Bhoy=Apples15 ????
Irish Rebe joins Feb 18 and has significant majority of their posts about the rape case only.
Hill16Bhoy joins March 18 and ALL posts are about the triak
Apples15 joins March and all bar 3 of their posts are about this trial..

so are they
a) One and the same person who has created two aliases to try and "back themselves up"
b) three buddies texting each other to thank each others posts and try and establish a united front?

Was sort of giving the benefit of the doubt to IrishRebe until that ****e about being a legal translator despite the fact that she has a fundamentally flawed concept of the law and quoted US law about drunkenness as opposed to Irish or UK law.

Hilarious. And you're calling other people loons. You honestly expect someone who is up late and wrecked and falling asleep to spend time finding information for someone too thick or lazy to use google? You're not all there, are you? No worries, I'll do so, and I'll bill you for the time spent.

Mrsmum · 01-04-2018 10:31AM

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.

Maybe this is a mad idea but would there be any benefit to have four separate court cases ? Would that be fairer at all to the girl as in a one to one rather than four against one? Each defendant had different claims to defend and as witnesses for each other wouldn't have complete knowledge of what each other had said. Might they not be the ones tripping themselves up then ? No ?

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

Comments