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

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:36PM

Bad Paddy wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Whatever you think there, sweetheart. I'm not in disbelief, I unfortunately grew up in Ireland. My Canadian friends actually grew up somewhere where a woman recounting a rape or an assault wasn't immediately disbelieved and mocked.

Eh, pretty sure, even in Trudeau's femanazi paradise, a man get's a fair trial before being convicted.

I'm sure they do. I'm pretty sure that also, a woman who mentioned that she was raped or assaulted is listened to and empathised with rather than people immediately assuming she's a liar. Nice use of feminazi, btw. True colours shown.

freshpopcorn · 01-04-2018 07:36PM

irishrebe wrote: »

Whatever you think there, sweetheart. I'm not in disbelief, I unfortunately grew up in Ireland. My Canadian friends actually grew up somewhere where a woman recounting a rape or an assault wasn't immediately disbelieved and mocked.

Would your Canadian friends start a hashtag movement about an ongoing court case without hearing all the fact? and refuse to take on board the decision the jury made based on the evidence?

The Talking Bread · 01-04-2018 07:36PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it says there that you cannot consent with drink taken.

no it says

if he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug,

That is the grey area of alcohol and consent which is the subject of huge debate. The barometer of when or when not you are at a level of drunkenness when your ability to consent is removed.

There is absolutely no grey area with regard performing a sexual act on sleeping "corpse" though. It is purely illegal and, if brought to court potentially liable for conviction

the_pen_turner · 01-04-2018 07:36PM

thebaz wrote: »

why did only a couple of hundred march in Belfast, the jusidstriction where court place took place , and in Dublin 4,000 took to the streets to protest at the alleged misscarriage of justice ?
I'm puzzled - if the case had taken place in Republic , I could understand somewhat.

Also why all the protesting about this case , why not protest at some of the leniant sentencing for violent rape crimes that were actially convicted here in the Republic of Ireland ?? That I could totally understand.

exactly.
this case , they were found not guilty and the whole plce goes nuts about it

loads of rapists are found guilty and give smalll sentnces and make a joke of the system. why not protest that the ones who have been proven to have done the crime are properly punished

citytillidie · 01-04-2018 07:37PM

thebaz wrote: »

why did only a couple of hundred march in Belfast, the jusidstriction where court place took place , and in Dublin 4,000 took to the streets to protest at the alleged misscarriage of justice ?
I'm puzzled - if the case had taken place in Republic , I could understand somewhat.

Also why all the protesting about this case , why not protest at some of the leniant sentencing for violent rape crimes that were actially convicted here in the Republic of Ireland ?? That I could totally understand.

I say because a big name Irish Rugby player was the accused maybe the reason

Faugheen · 01-04-2018 07:39PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it says there that you cannot consent with drink taken.
in this case the woman had 6 unts and the defendants had 22 ( i think someone posted that a few thousand posts ago)
surely that means that they didnt consent either . if it applies one way then it applies the other too.

It says specifically if they are incapable because of the effect of alcohol.

In other words, if you have a woman (or man) that can barely stand never mind anything else because if a lot of drink taken, then they cannot consent.

It does not mean one drink = no consent.

In this case, both defendants and complainant didn't feel they were that drunk that they couldn't consent, as they have admitted.

Mrsmum · 01-04-2018 07:39PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I didn't stop when asked to it is a crime.

The ridiculous notion that the simple act of initiating something between two adults who have already consented to be in a bed together is decided to be a crime (regardless of how they react to it) is what is ridiculous. Evidenced by the fact that you cannot present a single case history of a court case over the situation the original poster found himself in.

Newsflash - you have no God given entitlement to the body of the person who is in bed with you.

the_pen_turner · 01-04-2018 07:39PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

no it says

if he or she is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or some other drug,

That is the grey area of alcohol and consent which is the subject of huge debate. The barometer of when or when not you are at a level of drunkenness when your ability to consent is removed.

i understand that. so 6 units makes her drunk and unable to consent but 22 doesnt make the defendants too drunk to consent. that seems strange

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:41PM

The Talking Bread wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If I didn't stop when asked to it is a crime.

The ridiculous notion that the simple act of initiating something between two adults who have already consented to be in a bed together is decided to be a crime (regardless of how they react to it) is what is ridiculous. Evidenced by the fact that you cannot present a single case history of a court case over the situation the original poster found himself in.

You really are dangerously ignorant. It is one thing initiating a sexual act on someone, in bed or not and assuming consent but in your world just because you went into bed with her, it essentially gives you full consent until she gets out!! Awake, asleep, intoxicated or not!

To be honest with you I am starting to doubt you have any sexual experience going by your colourful approach to it. You sound like a frustrated teenager!

I honestly hope he is spoofing. I really hope he isn't a real person.

RuMan · 01-04-2018 07:42PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

it says there that you cannot consent with drink taken.
in this case the woman had 6 unts and the defendants had 22 ( i think someone posted that a few thousand posts ago)
surely that means that they didnt consent either . if it applies one way then it applies the other too.

Jaysus i'm a multiple sexual assault victim!
Anyone got Coppingers number?

Faugheen · 01-04-2018 07:43PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i understand that. so 6 units makes her drunk and unable to consent but 22 doesnt make the defendants too drunk to consent. that seems strange

She never said she was too drunk to consent. It was actually the barristers of the defendants who played up the amount of drink she had taken and what affect it had in her. Nobody else.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:43PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Whatever you think there, sweetheart. I'm not in disbelief, I unfortunately grew up in Ireland. My Canadian friends actually grew up somewhere where a woman recounting a rape or an assault wasn't immediately disbelieved and mocked.

Would your Canadian friends start a hashtag movement about an ongoing court case without hearing all the fact? and refuse to take on board the decision the jury made based on the evidence?

No, but they told me that if someone did, it certainly wouldn't provoke the level of bile seen on this thread. Having read some of the viewpoints exposed on here, they also understand a lot better why some of those Irish women using the hashtag might feel they way they do.

the_pen_turner · 01-04-2018 07:43PM

Faugheen wrote: »

It says specifically if they are incapable because of the effect of alcohol.

In other words, if you have a woman (or man) that can barely stand never mind anything else because if a lot of drink taken, then they cannot consent.

It does not mean one drink = no consent.

In this case, both defendants and complainant didn't feel they were that drunk that they couldn't consent, as they have admitted.

im talking in more general terms and using this as an example.
1 unit could make someone drunk and 20 could have no effect of somone else

its a huge grey area that needs serious though before anything oficial

the_pen_turner · 01-04-2018 07:44PM

Faugheen wrote: »

She never said she was too drunk to consent. It was actually the barristers of the defendants who played up the amount of drink she had taken and what affect it had in her. Nobody else.

i understand that

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:44PM

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I am calm. No need to patronise me. I just think it's incredible that people on this thread think that the hashtag crew are doing more to damage Ireland's reputation than some of the posters on this thread. In the last few pages alone, there is someone insinuating that you should expect to be raped if you go to fetch your bag from a room you were kissing a guy in, several people mocking the idea that having sex with a sleeping person is illegal and men who support consent classes are being called pathetic creeps. You don't think all of this is a million times darker than some sap with a MEN R TRASH sign? Some of the men posting here have done a far better job of making men seem like monsters than any 'snowflake green haired feminist' could have. Yet nobody on here seems to see what is so astoundingly obvious to the rest of the world.

Honestly you're giving way, way, WAY too much weight to an anonymous internet board.

Anonymous or not, the people posting this stuff are real. As much as I would like to hope they were all spoofing.

Faugheen · 01-04-2018 07:45PM

the_pen_turner wrote: »

im talking in more general terms and using this as an example.
1 unit could make someone drunk and 20 could have no effect of somone else

its a huge grey area that needs serious though before anything oficial

I agree with you, but neither the complainant nor the defendants said they were too drunk to consent.

It was the defence barristers who brought up how much she drank, and she said multiple times the drink had nothing to do with it.

Uncharted · 01-04-2018 07:46PM

irishrebe wrote: »

No, but they told me that if someone did, it certainly wouldn't provoke the level of bile seen on this thread. Having read some of the viewpoints exposed on here, they also understand a lot better why some of those Irish women using the hashtag might feel they way they do.

If Ireland is so bad,just leave.

If you are alone with someone and feel
threatened,just leave.

If this thread offends you,just leave.

It's called free will. Stop looking to be offended about everything and everyone.

thebaz · 01-04-2018 07:47PM

citytillidie wrote: »

I say because a big name Irish Rugby player was the accused maybe the reason

well if that is the case , it is wrong - everyone should be treated equally through the courts and sentenced equally - whether you are multi millionaire bussinessman / sportstar or on the dole. Really don't understand why the uproar about this particular case , when ther are many more worthy cases to get angry about, where rapists have actually been convicted in Republic, and sentenced lightly , be fully behind that , getting approriate sentencing , rape is a heinous crime and woman do need to be protected properly. But if someone is innoocent then that is a different matter, they need protecting too.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:48PM

Uncharted wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No, but they told me that if someone did, it certainly wouldn't provoke the level of bile seen on this thread. Having read some of the viewpoints exposed on here, they also understand a lot better why some of those Irish women using the hashtag might feel they way they do.

If Ireland is so bad,just leave.

If you are alone with someone and feel
threatened,just leave.

If this thread offends you,just leave.

It's called free will. Stop looking to be offended about everything and everyone.

I did leave. And reading this thread, I have never felt more thankful. Does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the country most of my family and friends still live in?

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:54PM

<SNIP>
No, but carry on showing the rest of the world how you think and act. And to think people were worried about a silly sap with a sign showing us up. Bless them.

RuMan · 01-04-2018 07:57PM

irishrebe wrote: »

I did leave. And reading this thread, I have never felt more thankful. Does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the country most of my family and friends still live in?

Best of luck, maybe u should move on with ur life.

Trudeau talks a lot about "equality" for a mans whose success is primarily down to who his daddy was.
Hopefully one day the gay son of immigrants might lead canada.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 07:58PM

RuMan wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I did leave. And reading this thread, I have never felt more thankful. Does that mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion about the country most of my family and friends still live in?

Best of luck, maybe u should move on with ur life.

Trudeau talks a lot about "equality" for a mans whose success is primarily down to who his daddy was.
Hopefully one day the gay son of immigrants might lead canada.

Maybe. And hopefully that person will give a sh1te about interests other than his own.

Potatoeman · 01-04-2018 08:01PM

thebaz wrote: »

why did only a couple of hundred march in Belfast, the jusidstriction where court place took place , and in Dublin 4,000 took to the streets to protest at the alleged misscarriage of justice ?
I'm puzzled - if the case had taken place in Republic , I could understand somewhat.

Also why all the protesting about this case , why not protest at some of the leniant sentencing for violent rape crimes that were actially convicted here in the Republic of Ireland ?? That I could totally understand.

Well think of the other high profile cases that are going on in the U.K. right now. Those child grooming west asain gangs that the police turned a blind eye to because they were afraid they would be called racist. Thousands of underage girls abused and exploited. A far worse case than this.

Uncharted · 01-04-2018 08:01PM

irishrebe wrote: »

Maybe. And hopefully that person will give a sh1te about interests other than his own.

Do you honestly think an online anonymous chat forum will change anyone's strongly held opinion?

You're sitting in a foreign country,constantly online dictating to others,back here in this 'cesspit' about what to think. Haa.

It's almost tragic. You poor thing.

dudara · 01-04-2018 08:02PM

ADMIN NOTE - Please stop engaging with the trolls. Report their posts, the mods and admins will deal with them.

dudara

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 08:03PM

Uncharted wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Maybe. And hopefully that person will give a sh1te about interests other than his own.

Do you honestly think an online anonymous chat forum will change anyone's strongly held opinion?

You're sitting in a foreign country,constantly online dictating to others,back here in this 'cesspit' about what to think. Haa.

It's almost tragic. You poor thing.

'Dictating to others what to think'. Wow, it's almost like this is....what's it called again...one of those 'discussion board' yokes, I think the young wans call them these days.

Uncharted · 01-04-2018 08:04PM

irishrebe wrote: »

'Dictating to others what to think'. Wow, it's almost like this is....what's it called again...one of those 'discussion board' yokes, I think the young wans call them these days.

Touched a nerve....?

Strazdas · 01-04-2018 08:04PM

thebaz wrote: »

why did only a couple of hundred march in Belfast, the jusidstriction where court place took place , and in Dublin 4,000 took to the streets to protest at the alleged misscarriage of justice ?
I'm puzzled - if the case had taken place in Republic , I could understand somewhat.

Also why all the protesting about this case , why not protest at some of the leniant sentencing for violent rape crimes that were actially convicted here in the Republic of Ireland ?? That I could totally understand.

The protests weren't just about the trial verdict but all aspects of the nine week week trial and the general issue of consent. i wouldn't necessarily agree with much of the things they are protesting about but it's definitely not just a simple 'wrong verdict' protest (their banners and placards had quite a few different slogans and messages on them from what I could see).

The 'I believe her' one could be interpreted as being aimed for example at those who called the woman a liar and a troublemaker rather than at the actual verdict.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 08:04PM

dudara wrote: »

ADMIN NOTE - Please stop engaging with the trolls. Report their posts, the mods and admins will deal with them.

dudara

It's quite hard to tell the difference at this point, to be honest with ya.

irishrebe · 01-04-2018 08:05PM

Uncharted wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

'Dictating to others what to think'. Wow, it's almost like this is....what's it called again...one of those 'discussion board' yokes, I think the young wans call them these days.

Touched a nerve....?

No, just educating you on a concept you don't seem to grasp.

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

Comments