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

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:31AM

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

They are also conveniently ignoring the new posters to this site who are on their side of this particular issue...

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:33AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

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...

I don't think there was a shred of evidence that claimed there had been a threat of violence.

But well done for getting it into the mix.

RuMan · 01-04-2018 10:33AM

backspin. wrote: »

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.

Doubt she works or ever has

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:34AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

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 ?

I did think the withholding information case could have been done separately.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 10:34AM

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

I literally linked the first post that came up on Google for someone who doesn't seem to think there can be a legal definition of drunk. It's I'm in disbelief that this isn't common sense.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 10:35AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

They are also conveniently ignoring the new posters to this site who are on their side of this particular issue...

Of which there are many more.

Heres Johnny · 01-04-2018 10:35AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

What are you on about?

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

One poster, many pages back, perhaps hundreds of pages back suggested that the complainant didn't verbally consent or verbally protest because she was frozen in fear of physical violence or even death.
That's the kind of mass hysteria being peddled which is making one side of this argument look very stupid.

They were acquitted in court. Fact.
Complainant called the other girls slutty yet it very much looks like she engaged willingly in a sex act with more than one man, at least initially, perhaps it did get out of hand afterwards who knows.
Yet the language used in WhatsApp has sparked a huge anti men backlash.
3 female jurors found not guilty.
Female judge presided over the case.
Female witness was the key to getting them acquitted.

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:35AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think there was a shred of evidence that claimed there had been a threat of violence.

But well done for getting it into the mix.

I never said there was any threat of violence you brought it into the mix???????

I said victims react in rape cases/sexual assaults with what is known as tonic immobilisation...which is how their bodies react to what they perceive to be a dangerous situation....

I can see you are having problems with it...I know it can't be easy for you...

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 10:37AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

You want to lock up more men without more supporting evidence of a crime being committed. I think most people would feel threatened by that?

I'm still waiting for you to suggest anything that will increase conviction rates, other than removing the need for pesky evidence.

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:41AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I never said there was any threat of violence you brought it into the mix???????

I said victims react in rape cases/sexual assaults with what is known as tonic immobilisation...which is how their bodies react to what they perceive to be a dangerous situation....

I can see you are having problems with it...I know it can't be easy for you...

You insinuated that this may have been the case here, when there isn't a shred of evidence for it only a prosecutor (like you) introducing it as a 'possibility'.

I know it can't be easy for you to accept what the prosecutor wanted to put in the minds of the jurors.

upandcumming · 01-04-2018 10:41AM

backspin. wrote:

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.

Any link to the image please?

Guy:Incognito · 01-04-2018 10:42AM

All of the what app messages seem to be getting attributed to all 4 of the men. People are making no distinction as to who said what.

What was there, 2 messages, from paddy Jackson?

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:42AM

GreeBo wrote: »

You want to lock up more men without more supporting evidence of a crime being committed. I think most people would feel threatened by that?

I'm still waiting for you to suggest anything that will increase conviction rates, other than removing the need for pesky evidence.

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

I have made about a half dozen different suggestions NONE of which involve removing the need for pesky evidence....

How is that posters are twisting/misrepresenting everything that challenges the piss poor conviction rate for rape....it's bizaar...

Guy:Incognito · 01-04-2018 10:44AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

A very recent 9 week trial says different.............

Silentcorner · 01-04-2018 10:46AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You insinuated that this may have been the case here, when there isn't a shred of evidence for it only a prosecutor (like you) introducing it as a 'possibility'.

I know it can't be easy for you to accept what the prosecutor wanted to put in the minds of the jurors.

I INSINUATED NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You are the only person who mentioned a threat of violence.

I never mentioned any threat of violence ANYWHERE...

I can't help you with this at all I'm afraid....I can't even understand how you are struggling with it...

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:48AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I INSINUATED NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You are the only person who mentioned a threat of violence.

I never mentioned any threat of violence ANYWHERE...

I can't help you with this at all I'm afraid....I can't even understand how you are struggling with it...

How can it be a dangerous situation then, dangerous enough for you to freeze?

The 'body' would have to percieve a threat.

Not sure you have thought this through in the effort to throw out another buzz word - 'tonic immobilisation'.

Amirani · 01-04-2018 10:49AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

Are you actually that blinkered?

Bizarre that some people can think like this, about anything.

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:49AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

...I can't be more explicit than that...

I have made about a half dozen different suggestions NONE of which involve removing the need for pesky evidence....

How is that posters are twisting/misrepresenting everything that challenges the piss poor conviction rate for rape....it's bizaar...

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....except those dragged into court and through the media mire defending themselves.

upandcumming · 01-04-2018 10:50AM

Shelga wrote:

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.

It's despicable really. And he after walking free from court with a not guilty verdict.

Shelga wrote:

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.
Iâ€™m glad theyâ€™ve brought my attention to this, because itâ€™s something I, as a woman, would now wholeheartedly support.

All reasonable people should be supporting anonymity for defendants in cases such as this, and I would argue that this anonymity should hold even if the complainant waives their right to same, until a guilty verdict is reached.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 10:52AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

I INSINUATED NOTHING OF THE SORT.

You are the only person who mentioned a threat of violence.

I never mentioned any threat of violence ANYWHERE...

I can't help you with this at all I'm afraid....I can't even understand how you are struggling with it...

How can it be a dangerous situation then, dangerous enough for you to freeze?

The 'body' would have to percieve a threat.

Not sure you have thought this through in the effort to throw out another buzz word - 'tonic immobilisation'.

You don't think the body can interpret being penetrated without your consent as a 'dangerous situation'?

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 10:52AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

I have made about a half dozen different suggestions NONE of which involve removing the need for pesky evidence....

How is that posters are twisting/misrepresenting everything that challenges the piss poor conviction rate for rape....it's bizaar...

Firstly, none of your suggestions increase convictions, they make the situation less unpleasant for the alleged victim.

Secondly, every man needs to fear the hunt for higher conviction rates. Just look at the examples from the UK, where evidence was withheld to get convictions. How do you decide which men haven't committed rape other than a trial, like we have today?

Give us one suggestion that will increase rates, just one!
Look, I get you want the rate higher, I want us to be better at international football, but wanting doesn't make it so, in either case.

begbysback · 01-04-2018 10:55AM

I have a question regarding the poll,and 87 people voting "no comment"

Technically voting "no comment" is commenting - so if yee have no comment, then why vote?

BrianBoru00 · 01-04-2018 10:55AM

Silentcorner wrote: »

They are also conveniently ignoring the new posters to this site who are on their side of this particular issue...

It's not "convenient" at all. If Irishrebe was able to back up her/his posts or have a mature discussion I wouldn't be picking up on it.

Its a bit ironic to be suggesting "convenience" given the nature of the protests and arguments put forward here

Her/His MO appears to be making a statement and telling others to disprove it instead of what most mature/balanced posters do which is establish reputable sources to back up their claims

razorblunt · 01-04-2018 10:55AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I came across that yoke myself on Twitter. No self-awareness.

I expected better from Paul Brady.

FrancieBrady · 01-04-2018 10:56AM

irishrebe wrote: »

You don't think the body can interpret being penetrated without your consent as a 'dangerous situation'?

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

professore · 01-04-2018 10:57AM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

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.

No mention of aggressive male moaning. You made that up.

RabbleRouser2k · 01-04-2018 11:00AM

upandcumming wrote: »

It's despicable really. And he after walking free from court with a not guilty verdict.

All reasonable people should be supporting anonymity for defendants in cases such as this, and I would argue that this anonymity should hold even if the complainant waives their right to same, until a guilty verdict is reached.

There was a discussion on Ray D'Arcy's show last night-I avoided it, but the bitesize is that it was biased and anti-men, and featured Richie Sadler discussing consent. Many sane ladies even denounced it-saying it was completely wrongheaded.

Sadler popped up in a podcast this week, and apparently that was more detailed, more involved and more an examination of the whole consent discussion. D'arcy screwed up again.

goz83 · 01-04-2018 11:00AM

irishrebe wrote: »

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.

And what if these racism awareness courses were held only for white women not from the UK? Lets say their rationale is that white women outside the UK were the only people capable of being racist...that white men just naturally had an awareness and so didn’t need the course. How would you rate the course then?

Silentcorner wrote: »

I really can't help you with this....

Men who do not Rape have nothing to fear....I can't be more explicit than that...

.

I’m trying to figure out whether you’re naive, or just ignorant. Don’t suppose you ever heard of false allegations.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 11:00AM

GreeBo wrote: »

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!

What's really funny is that the idea that some men might end up jailed unfairly has you up in arms, but not the idea that someone who has been raped and was unable to get the accused convicted? With this kind of case, there's always going to be a loser, and that loser is usually the complainant, because it is very difficult in many situations of rape to produce irrefutable evidence of a crime. Hence why the vast majority of rape accusations don't even end up going to court, and the majority of victims don't even report it. So is it that in your eyes, when it's 'not fair' for the accuser, they have to suck it up and deal with it, but when there's even the slightest bit of suggestion that the law could change to make it easier for the accused to be convicted (which, realistically, won't happen), you go crazy?

GreeBo · 01-04-2018 11:01AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So the body freezes and allows it to happen some more?

Ok. :rolleyes:

Yeah, it's the well documented " fight or flight or night night" response.

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

Comments