nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RuMan

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Everyone knows that rape and sexual assault is a massive problem throughout the world right?

Governments are only beginning to get a tackle on it now.

Isn't it a very animalistic world where the physically stronger overpower and rape the physically weaker? You know it goes on in so many countries. The facts and statistics are there.

It's a nightmare of a world. Why do you want women to live in a world like this.

Imagine we could travel around space and we stumbled across a planet. You saw that there were millions of men and women on the planet.
You looked closer and saw that men were raping, gang raping,abusing and hitting the women on that planet, and displaying women in porn in violent and degrading situations for their own amusement, you saw that men took over most countries governements, so that women had no way to charge their rapists, you saw that women were committing suicide due to it.

What would you describe it as? I would describe it as hell.

You potray woman as week victims and almost unwilling participants.
The woman i know enjoy sex and participate fully and enthuasiasicly.
You get the odd criminal who robs but most people dont.
Most people dont rape and women in Ireland are pretty safe in historical and international terms.

[Deleted User]

The Talking Bread wrote: »

You are completely twisting the point here.

Simply put. It is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE (ENTIRELY) to give consent, implied, by default, through marital or relationship status or knowledge that they will enjoy it (from previous encounters) if you are asleep.

It is written in black and white in law,

Noone is saying it doesn't happen but it is illegal. Obviously if both are complicit to it, that is their sexual relationship. There are a lot of mutual sexual fetishes that can be deemed illegal if you delve into it but that doesn't take away from the potential criminal liability of such an act

I didn't want to twist your point. I wanted your opinion.

You've given me a law definition that I wasn't aware of so that's cool.

RuMan

The Talking Bread wrote: »

You are completely twisting the point here.

Simply put. It is LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE (ENTIRELY) to give consent, implied, by default, through marital or relationship status or knowledge that they will enjoy it (from previous encounters) if you are asleep.

It is written in black and white in law,

Noone is saying it doesn't happen but it is illegal. Obviously if both are complicit to it, that is their sexual relationship. There are a lot of mutual sexual fetishes that can be deemed illegal if you delve into it but that doesn't take away from the potential criminal liability of such an act

Perhaps the law should change to reflect reality not some prudes wishful thinking?
Keep the Ivana Bacik types out of my bedroom

The Talking Bread

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't want to twist your point. I wanted your opinion.

You've given me a law definition that I wasn't aware of so that's cool.

Well, essentially Section 48 of the 2017 Act makes it clear and simple for anyone to understand. I am just shocked that anyone, especially someone like the OP who actively engages in sex as he says, wouldn't have realised the law in this area!

Frightening to be honest!

[Deleted User]

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Well, essentially Section 48 of the 2017 Act makes it clear and simple for anyone to understand. I am just shocked that anyone, especially someone like the OP who actively engages in sex as he says, wouldn't have realised the law in this area!

Frightening to be honest!

Honestly, a regular guy knowing rape laws by the word is a fair bit dodgier than someone not knowing them.

Not about you, just an observation.

Strazdas

RuMan wrote: »

Perhaps the law should change to reflect reality not some prudes wishful thinking?
Keep the Ivana Bacik types out of my bedroom

99.9% of sexual encounters never end up in a case in a courtroom. It can only become a legal matter if one of the two people involved decides to involve the law for whatever reason

The Talking Bread

RuMan wrote: »

Perhaps the law should change to reflect reality not some prudes wishful thinking?
Keep the Ivana Bacik types out of my bedroom

you sound like a right juvenile gobsh*te! The fact that you think people are prudish because they are pointing out that sex or a blowjob with a motionless sleeping body with a is pretty telling, on your behalf!

Noone is saying you or (hopefully) your lucky partner can't enjoy it, people are merely saying on the balance of society, it is outside of the norm of sexual enjoyment and is, most definitely illegal

Just because you enjoy something doesn't make other people prudes. Get over yourself

neonsofa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Honestly, a regular guy knowing rape laws by the word is a fair bit dodgier than someone not knowing them.

Not about you, just an observation.

I honestly would have expected everyone to know that the law would be you don't have sex with people while they're asleep. Granted I wouldn't be able to quote the legislation but... Google.

TheValeyard

RuMan wrote: »

Keep the Ivana Bacik types out of my bedroom

Ivana Bacik in your bedroom. The boogeyman is real!

The Talking Bread

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, a regular guy knowing rape laws by the word is a fair bit dodgier than someone not knowing them.

Not about you, just an observation.

I don't get your point?
And for what it is worth I have had every piece of sexual legislation, amended or otherwise rammed down my throat last Summer/Autumn (2016) when I was doing my criminal FE1 ! So I don't get what you mean by dangerous?? I obviously had to google the section, especially when it was reamended....... easy type in asleep, sexual law consent into google.............simple.

Knowing someone can't give consent if they are asleep is hardly that complicated that you would need a legal interpreter or any sort of common sense, even, to understand!

professore

meeeeh wrote: »

And tell me what would the evidence be? Do you think there is evidence of every reaction we made. If dog scares me in the woods and nobody sees it or hears me, does that mean it didn't happen? Explanation she froze is completely possible It's just that rape wasn't proven. The whole thing is not exactly hard to understand.

She turned her head away when Dara Florence entered the room. She turned and looked Paddy Jackson in the eye. She discussed condoms. Doesn't sound like someone frozen in fear.

One eyed Jack

manonboard wrote: »

Hi One Eyed Jack,

Would you mind elaborating on the point above regards not being able to take back consent. I want to see if i understood you correctly.
I enjoyed the rest of your well spoken post.

I think it's probably best explained by giving you an example. So we'll say if you and I were to end up in bed together and we both consented to the sex that was about to take place. Everything was great and we parted ways happily. Later on I meet a mate and I'm relating the events of the night before, and my friend tells me they think I was raped. I have a think about what my friend says and decide yeah, I was raped. That doesn't mean you have actually committed rape, because as far as you were concerned, consent was present. Informed consent even, because I knew what I was getting into. I'm a big believer in informed consent btw, just to make that absolutely clear.

Now, we'll say I'm into some kinky shìt like slapping your ass and yelling "hi ho silver" as I'm riding you, and you're really not into that shìt. You've previously given consent to sex as you expected it to be, and when it isn't meeting your expectations, it's at that point that you have every right to withdraw consent, and if I continue slapping your ass and yelling hi ho silver, then IMO you have a legitimate complaint against me. It would however be up to the officers investigating your complaint to decide just what charges could, or should be brought against me, and it would be up to the DPP to decide whether pursuing a case against me would be in the public interest. More times it's simply decided that there is insufficient evidence to pursue a case that it would be possible to secure a conviction, and that's a bigger reason why often times either cases don't proceed to trial, or if they do, the evidence presented isn't strong enough to meet the burden of proof required to allow a jury to form the opinion that there could be no reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of a criminal offence.

[Deleted User]

irishrebe wrote:

That's grand so. We got the vote so we should just shut up? I agree that post is hyperbole but it's also pretty dangerous to say it's never been better, as if there's not still an enormous way to go.

What exactly do you want? We all agree that rape is appalling and is a criminal offence. I agree that it is also very hard to prove.

Without simply taking a woman's word for it without evidence (which I am sure you will admit is a ridiculous idea anyway) where else do we have to "enormously" go in order to get your utopia to where it needs to be?

How must we better serve the fairer sex?

I just treat them as equals with equal responsibilities and opportunities (while noting the differences in genetics). I must be doing it wrong.

[Deleted User]

The Talking Bread wrote: »

I don't get your point?

It was a flippant point about when someone knows a certain law inside out, it's suspicious cause it's like they want to know how to get around it.

I didn't mean for it to be central to this thread.

manonboard

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your response to my question

Thanks for the further explanation. I am in agreement with you.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Em, no. You don’t have to be slapping her ass for her to tell you to stop. If she agreed to sex and for whatever reason changes her mind and at any stage says no she’s withdrawing consent and you need to stop.
Forcing women into sex when they don’t want to have sex by physical or mental threats is rape too.

professore

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Everyone knows that rape and sexual assault is a massive problem throughout the world right?

Governments are only beginning to get a tackle on it now.

Isn't it a very animalistic world where the physically stronger overpower and rape the physically weaker? You know it goes on in so many countries. The facts and statistics are there.

It's a nightmare of a world. Why do you want women to live in a world like this.

Imagine we could travel around space and we stumbled across a planet. You saw that there were millions of men and women on the planet.
You looked closer and saw that men were raping, gang raping,abusing and hitting the women on that planet, and displaying women in porn in violent and degrading situations for their own amusement, you saw that men took over most countries governements, so that women had no way to charge their rapists, you saw that women were committing suicide due to it.

What would you describe it as? I would describe it as hell.

And yet most men don't rape.

And yet we have Theresa May and Angela Merkel in charge of two of the worlds most powerful countries. Programs specifically targeted at girls for all sorts of things across society. I'm all for it as I've got two daughters and no sons, luckily for me. Both daughters are doing great and any problems they have had have originated from other girls.

If you have such a dim view of men, then cut all association with them to a minimum. Work in a female dominated career of which there are many. Have a female doctor. Most of your children's teachers will be female. Go to women only gyms. If things are as bad as you claim, women are incredibly reckless with their personal safety.

CommandoJack

The main point is that, in an initially consensual encounter, once one partner is told to stop, and they do, then the initial encounter was still under the original consent, and so wasn't rape.
There's a grey area in there between when the "I don't like this" decision (moment of withdrawal of consent) is made and the "stop!" instruction (communication of withdrawal of consent) is given, but that still doesn't remove the original consent from the initial contact.

professore

What's incredibly frustrating here is on the one hand the idiots who are saying there was no chance it was rape and the other idiots saying it was 100% rape and women never lie. Both quoting specific things out of context and adding blatant lies and exaggerations to them.

Both positions are equally stupid.

On the believeher side there is a nasty undercurrent of this being a problem with men in general.

On the other side there is a nasty undercurrent full stop.

I really hope most juries are more even handed.

tritium

Raul Mysterious Revenge wrote: »

Em, no. You don’t have to be slapping her ass for her to tell you to stop. If she agreed to sex and for whatever reason changes her mind and at any stage says no she’s withdrawing consent and you need to stop.
Forcing women into sex when they don’t want to have sex by physical or mental threats is rape too.

You seem to have really missed the point OEJ was trying to make I think. You have however touched on a really impoertant point- it has to be communicated that you’re withdrawing consent. Not subtle body language signals, not I didn’t want to anymore but I froze so you should have known. If someone explicitly gives consent then if they wish to change that they also explicitly withdraw it

The Talking Bread

professore wrote: »

What's incredibly frustrating here is on the one hand the idiots who are saying there was no chance it was rape and the other idiots saying it was 100% rape and women never lie. Both quoting specific things out of context and adding blatant lies and exaggerations to them.

Both positions are equally stupid.

On the believeher side there is a nasty undercurrent of this being a problem with men in general.

On the other side there is a nasty undercurrent full stop.

I really hope most juries are more even handed.

Most of the country, I have found could not make a definitive decision on it. Yes there are extremists (some of whom are just on a witch hunt and probably still aren't utterly convinced based on the facts) on both sides but social media attracts the extremist opinions. Most people still cant make up their mind. Very very few people out there saying she definitely (in their opinion) was lying.

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

You seem to have really missed the point OEJ was trying to make I think. You have however touched on a really impoertant point- it has to be communicated that you’re withdrawing consent. Not subtle body language signals, not I didn’t want to anymore but I froze so you should have known. If someone explicitly gives consent then if they wish to change that they also explicitly withdraw it

Have we not had numerous posters here laughing at the idea of checking in during the sexual experience, telling us that consent is obvious and that they are well able to tell that their partner is enjoying herself without them having to be checking all the time. If that is the case and their partner withdraws consent, would it not equally be obvious to them that she was no longer enjoying herself ???

professore

If we assume that the defendant was raped. In some ways she did get justice of a sort. The four involved have had their reputation destroyed, lost over a year of their prime rugby playing careers, and will be persona non grata after retirement for any media, coaching or promotional gigs.

Of course in this scenario she also has to live with the trauma, but most people have a lot of sympathy for her.

freshpopcorn

Regarding consent where does it end?
Most people would be in agreement that there isn't any issue with two people agreeing to have sex and saying yes.
Lets say Bill and Jill agree to have sex.
Bill starts has sex as he normally would and Jill goes along with it. It isn't the sex she's used to. She said nothing because she was scared/afraid. Could this be considered rape in the future?
Will people have to sit down and agree in detail about what will happen during the intercourse.

Sam Quentin

Some of these posts about: Basically stopping half way through are kinda funny

.. THAT'S IF it wasn't about what could be a life changing/destroying moment..

ohhh I do apologise I'll stop right now,.. As she smokes a cigi and searches her phone for her solicitor..
Ohhhhh it looks so easy here in b+w and down in the solicitors office annnnnnnnd it the Four Courts!?
Lets all start videoing our 'sex-ploits' from here on in as evidence.
#GETTING RIDICULOUS

One eyed Jack

Raul Mysterious Revenge wrote: »

Em, no. You don’t have to be slapping her ass for her to tell you to stop. If she agreed to sex and for whatever reason changes her mind and at any stage says no she’s withdrawing consent and you need to stop.
Forcing women into sex when they don’t want to have sex by physical or mental threats is rape too.

Yep, I'd agree with that, but the point I was making was around the idea of what Mrsmum termed "taking back consent". That implies a decision taken in retrospect which a person is making after the event has taken place, not before, and not during the event itself. It's got nothing to do with the concept of consent, and everything to do with shifting the standard of the criminal offence of rape.

BBDBB

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Regarding consent where does it end?
Most people would be in agreement that there isn't any issue with two people agreeing to have sex and saying yes.
Lets say

Bill and Jill agree to have sex.
Bill starts has sex as he normally would
Jill goes along with it.
It isn't the sex she's used to.
She said nothing because she was scared/afraid. Could this be considered rape in the future?
Will people have to sit down and agree in detail about what will happen during the intercourse.

worst children's first reader

EVER!

Bambi985

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who said anything about 'potential rapists'.

The guy by opening her jeans clearly wanted sex, she claims she didn't. She went back into that situation, with him drunk and alone in his bedroom.

To retrieve her bag as she wanted to go home.

"Most women I know wouldn't do that" my arse. Most women want their fcuking bag before they leave a stranger's house. And most women have been in this situation countless times, having their jeans opened or a hand into their knickers when they're hooking up with someone. Guys will try to move things towards sex often in these situations.

Saying "no" or "I don't want to have sex" or backing away and indicating by your body language that you're not into it signals to most average decent non-disgusting men that they should back off, now is not the time for that. 99.9% of the time this is the case. Most men get it loud and clear. You don't walk away feeling lucky to have escaped a predator rapist, you simply signalled your intentions and the situation has now passed.

And now you want to leave and need to get your bag. Which is in said fella's room, but you already told him loud and clear that sex wasn't on the cards so it's all good.

Honestly, you're making a mockery out of men here. Most men are not rapists and most men know that when their advances are rejected, it doesn't mean you should be more forceful next time. Can't believe I even have to type this out.

Mrsmum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, I'd agree with that, but the point I was making was around the idea of what Mrsmum termed "taking back consent". That implies a decision taken in retrospect which a person is making after the event has taken place, not before, and not during the event itself. It's got nothing to do with the concept of consent, and everything to do with shifting the standard of the criminal offence of rape.

You decided it implied that. Like any reasonable person I don't agree that a person can enjoy or willingly take part in sex and the next day decide it was rape. Taking back consent means being entiltled to stop at any point during the sexual act.

retro:electro

It’s a simple concept but it seems to cause a system failure in some people.
Don’t touch someone’s lady bits while they’re sleeping.
Don’t touch someone’s man bits while they’re sleeping.
Don’t have sex with someone if there is any doubt at all in your mind whether consent is lacking.
Ask. Do it in a way that is appropriate to the moment. It doesn’t have to be “can I do this, can I do that?”.. sometimes it can be as simple as “do you wanna fcuk”. It really doesn’t have to be that complicated.

The worst thing that can happen is you won’t get the ride. Well no actually the worst thing that can happen is you’ll be accused of rape.