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

Mandyo

I'm a woman, and sick to the teeth of the feminists and their pitchforks since the verdict! ... They cannot seem to accept the court ruling ... They wanted a guilty verdict come hell or high water! ... There seems to be a pattern on social media ... Any man that dares make a rational comment is belittled and ridiculed ... It appears to me that feminists have set their cause back years! ... Also, I note there is uproar about how the accuser was questioned ... Answers had to be found! ... I suppose it would have been acceptable if her word was just accepted, and the men found guilty! ... Also, where was the fairness in the accuser being allowed to keep her anonymity, while the accused were paraded like criminals in front of the cameras day after day? ... The uproar continues about the filthy language used by the men ... I agree it was shocking ... However, when I mentioned the fact on a thread that women actually speak of men in degradatory terms, It was denied outright! ... The venom continues, from perfect women on pedestals ... Clutching at straws, throwing their toys out of the prams, because they didn't like the verdict.

Andrew Beef

Like many people, I followed the trial pretty closely; my own thoughts are as follows:

- Dara Florence’s evidence was key; everyone was drunk except her. She says that she observed a threesome with no hint of menace. It’s the salient evidence.

- Stuart Olding ejaculated on his own stomach/chest; a rapist wouldn’t do that in my view.

- I’m sceptical when I hear about oral rape; what sort of idiot puts his member somewhere where it could be bitten off?

- Paddy Jackson is a god in Belfast; why would he be bothered raping anyone?

- If the alleged victim was raped, then why in God’s name would she flee the house, be halfway down the road, realise that she’d forgotten her phone, and then head back to the bedroom full of rapists to get her phone? That’s just not plausible.

Too much of this story doesn’t stack up.

#Ibelievethem

irishrebe

RuMan wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

And that's the entire problem.

Fair enough. Consent seems clear cut to me.

There are several people posting on this thread who seem to genuinely believe it's not a crime to have sex with someone who is sleeping.

Faugheen

Flipper22 wrote: »

OK. I do and have explained it.

Was just responding to what you wrote, not what others wrote

What I wrote isn't the issue.

It's people saying they can perform a sex act on someone when they're sleeping and believing there's nothing wrong with it.

You can give me all these scenarios of asking before bed or whatever, but it's not me to you need to be talking to. Seriously.

That's part of the problem. You're giving me the scenarios, when you should be explaining it to those who don't believe consent can be withdrawn until the person wakes up.

Bob_Marley

irishrebe wrote: »

So you think everyone who commits it goes out with the intention of doing so? You don't think a huge proportion of the men convicted of rape genuinely thought they had done nothing wrong?

With the intention probably in most cases not, but they very definitely know it's rape, you don't hammer on if the woman is in any uncomfortable about it, even a half wit knows that, despite the narrative being pushed by the media, we don't need any utterly patronising feminist propaganda and subliminal "men are trash" brainwashing "re-education" sessions.

[Deleted User]

irishrebe wrote: »

There are several people posting on this thread who seem to genuinely believe it's not a crime to have sex with someone who is sleeping.

I believe that conversation was about waking up your partner with oral sex. A bit different to how you described it just now.

RuMan

irishrebe wrote: »

So you think everyone who commits it goes out with the intention of doing so? You don't think a huge proportion of the men convicted of rape genuinely thought they had done nothing wrong?

Yes or at least they realise while they are doing it that is wrong.
I'm big on personal responsibility though.

Potatoeman

Mandyo wrote: »

I'm a woman, and sick to the teeth of the feminists and their pitchforks since the verdict! ... They cannot seem to accept the court ruling ... They wanted a guilty verdict come hell or high water! ... There seems to be a pattern on social media ... Any man that dares make a rational comment is belittled and ridiculed ... It appears to me that feminists have set their cause back years! ... Also, I note there is uproar about how the accuser was questioned ... Answers had to be found! ... I suppose it would have been acceptable if her word was just accepted, and the men found guilty! ... Also, where was the fairness in the accuser being allowed to keep her anonymity, while the accused were paraded like criminals in front of the cameras day after day? ... The uproar continues about the filthy language used by the men ... I agree it was shocking ... However, when I mentioned the fact on a thread that women actually speak of men in degradatory terms, It was denied outright! ... The venom continues, from perfect women on pedestals ... Clutching at straws, throwing their toys out of the prams, because they didn't like the verdict.

One of the girls at work pointed out that no one seemed to mind the accuser saying the other girls at the party were acting ‘slutty’. No mention of how though.

kumate_champ07

freshpopcorn wrote: »

We might also see certain kind of sexual acts banned/made illegal from my understanding of some people.

Isnt there a petition to have them taken off the Irish team because of their sexual preferences? I think whatever happens between consenting adults in the bedroom shouldnt cause them to lose their job

If there wasnt a rape case it would have stayed private. There is legally no way they can lose their place on the team, unless it is proven that they used illegal substances, which was alluded to with the missing data from their phones

Faugheen

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Like many people, I followed the trial pretty closely; my own thoughts are as follows:

- Dara Florence’s evidence was key; everyone was drunk except her. She says that she observed a threesome with no hint of menace. It’s the salient evidence.

- Stuart Olding ejaculated on his own stomach/chest; a rapist wouldn’t do that in my view.

- I’m sceptical when I hear about oral rape; what sort of idiot puts his member somewhere where it could be bitten off?

- Paddy Jackson is a god in Belfast; why would he be bothered raping anyone?

- If the alleged victim was raped, then why in God’s name would she flee the house, be halfway down the road, realise that she’d forgotten her phone, and then head back to the bedroom full of rapists to get her phone? That’s just not plausible.

Too much of this story doesn’t stack up.

#Ibelievethem

She didn't go back to get her phone after the rape. When she went upstairs to get her bag, that's when she said the rape happened.

Honestly how many times does this have to be said to people?

You can believe whatever side of the story you like but don't use false statements to back it up.

wexie

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

There is legally no way they can lose their place on the team, unless it is proven that they used illegal substances, which was alluded to with the missing data from their phones

There is though, stipulation in the contract against 'bringing the game into disrepute'. Of course you could argue over quite what that might mean.

Personally I'm genuinely curious to see what will happen because I'd imagine there's going to be a lot of pressure on the IRFU to both keep them and let go of them.

Only big difference as I see it is that if they keep them they can't get sued over anything. Not so much if they let them go.

the_pen_turner

Faugheen wrote: »

What I wrote isn't the issue.

It's people saying they can perform a sex act on someone when they're sleeping and believing there's nothing wrong with it.

You can give me all these scenarios of asking before bed or whatever, but it's not me to you need to be talking to. Seriously.

That's part of the problem. You're giving me the scenarios, when you should be explaining it to those who don't believe consent can be withdrawn until the person wakes up.

i agree with that but what happens if for some wierd reason the woman want to have sex while asleep. thats her wish and has consented to it. i agree its unlikely but it is a wierd glitch in the law

Uncharted

Welcome to the new Ireland of 2018. ( aka India by the Atlantic ) According to some posters here,we're living in a real life handmaid's tale . Oppressed females being held down on a whim and raped at will by jack boot wearing sex crazed lunatics. Get a grip ffs! You're actually doing women's rights movement a disservice with this 'gender war ' rubbish.

Pure and utter hyperbole of the highest order!

Margaret Atwood couldnt write this stuff.

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that conversation was about waking up your partner with oral sex. A bit different to how you described it just now.

People picking up the ball to make a sensationalist homerun. Ridiculous.

cloudatlas

Mandyo wrote: »

I'm a woman, and sick to the teeth of the feminists and their pitchforks since the verdict! ... They cannot seem to accept the court ruling ... They wanted a guilty verdict come hell or high water! ... There seems to be a pattern on social media ... Any man that dares make a rational comment is belittled and ridiculed ... It appears to me that feminists have set their cause back years! ... Also, I note there is uproar about how the accuser was questioned ... Answers had to be found! ... I suppose it would have been acceptable if her word was just accepted, and the men found guilty! ... Also, where was the fairness in the accuser being allowed to keep her anonymity, while the accused were paraded like criminals in front of the cameras day after day? ... The uproar continues about the filthy language used by the men ... I agree it was shocking ... However, when I mentioned the fact on a thread that women actually speak of men in degradatory terms, It was denied outright! ... The venom continues, from perfect women on pedestals ... Clutching at straws, throwing their toys out of the prams, because they didn't like the verdict.

Look there is disgusting behaviour on both sides. Distasteful comments about the complainant being a lying slut who just regretted having sex. Laois footballer tweeting “It’s her that should be destroyed in the papers now.” Some comments on boards have been nasty. Then the families of the accused in the court laughing and jeering whilst the complainant gave evidence. So awful behaviour on both sides so acknowledge the other behaviour and acknowledge that not all of the protesters are protesting the verdict but there asking for reform and in solidarity with victims of abuse.

I would say those kind of whatsapp conversations are more common in male circles and I would also say that the majority of women who engage in those kinds of conversations are copying male behaviour.

irishrebe

Deleted User wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

There are several people posting on this thread who seem to genuinely believe it's not a crime to have sex with someone who is sleeping.

I believe that conversation was about waking up your partner with oral sex. A bit different to how you described it just now.

Not necessarily partner. Any woman who had engaged in sexual activity the night before seemed to be fair game.

irishrebe

the_pen_turner wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

What I wrote isn't the issue.

It's people saying they can perform a sex act on someone when they're sleeping and believing there's nothing wrong with it.

You can give me all these scenarios of asking before bed or whatever, but it's not me to you need to be talking to. Seriously.

That's part of the problem. You're giving me the scenarios, when you should be explaining it to those who don't believe consent can be withdrawn until the person wakes up.

i agree with that but what happens if for some wierd reason the woman want to have sex while asleep. thats her wish and has consented to it. i agree its unlikely but it is a wierd glitch in the law

Then she's hardly likely to go to the Gardai and report it and put herself through a lengthy rape trial then, is she? Christ on a bike.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People picking up the ball to make a sensationalist homerun. Ridiculous.

In fairness, it happened a few hours ago.. Memories are hazy and there're are a lot of emotions and some anger involved here clearly. I can see how it turned from "waking up your partner with oral" to "having sex with people who are asleep".

And that is why we have juries.

RuMan

Bob_Marley wrote: »

With the intention probably in most cases not, but they very definitely know it's rape, you don't hammer on if the woman is in any uncomfortable about it, even a half wit knows that, despite the narrative being pushed by the media, we don't need any utterly patronising feminist propaganda and subliminal "men are trash" brainwashing "re-education" sessions.

Agree. That is my view entirely. Rather then force all men to endure pointless consent classes i'd like to see far harsher sentencing of actual rapists. I would also suggest the emphasis should be on the public nature of the trial in belfast which served both the men and woman badly.

Faugheen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i agree with that but what happens if for some wierd reason the woman want to have sex while asleep. thats her wish and has consented to it. i agree its unlikely but it is a wierd glitch in the law

I know that, but like I said, it makes no difference to me as I'm trying to get into the heads if some people that just because you or some partners might like it, it doesn't mean they all do. As well as this, you have no right to do as you please just because someone is in your bed.

It should be those people you're saying this to, not me.

The Talking Bread

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Like many people, I followed the trial pretty closely; my own thoughts are as follows:

- Dara Florence’s evidence was key; everyone was drunk except her. She says that she observed a threesome with no hint of menace. It’s the salient evidence.

- Stuart Olding ejaculated on his own stomach/chest; a rapist wouldn’t do that in my view.

- I’m sceptical when I hear about oral rape; what sort of idiot puts his member somewhere where it could be bitten off?

- Paddy Jackson is a god in Belfast; why would he be bothered raping anyone?

- If the alleged victim was raped, then why in God’s name would she flee the house, be halfway down the road, realise that she’d forgotten her phone, and then head back to the bedroom full of rapists to get her phone? That’s just not plausible.

Too much of this story doesn’t stack up.

#Ibelievethem

She also said she saw that PJ and the accuser were having sex.
PJ said he didn't have sex with her.

Now if she was able to determine whether everything was consensual, surely she would be capable to determine whether or not sex was occurring.
And if she was mistaken as to whether sex was actually happening, could you not imagine a situation when she may have been mistaken as to whether it was all consensual.

None of the evidence was clear cut.

The jury made the only decision they could make in this circumstances. And this bis not down to the fact that they thought PJ et al were clear and honest in their account of the night, it was because they could not state that the parties were guilty BRD.

And wtf does "PJ is a God in Belfast...........why would he rape anyone" mean ?????????????????

Actually, upon reviewing everything you have said, your ability to comprehend the case, for someone who states they followed it intently, is questionable

And how in God's name would you know where a rapist would decide to ejaculate! If anything, he would, in the heat of the moment do anything but ejaculate on her! especially when is mate is involved and in physical contact with her

irishrebe

Deleted User wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People picking up the ball to make a sensationalist homerun. Ridiculous.

In fairness, it happened a few hours ago.. Memories are hazy and there're are a lot of emotions and some anger involved here clearly. I can see how it turned from "waking up your partner with oral" to "having sex with people who are asleep".

And that is why we have juries.

Why don't you go back and read what was actually written?

Bob_Marley

RuMan wrote: »

Agree. That is my view entirely. Rather then force all men to endure pointless consent classes i'd like to see far harsher sentencing of actual rapists. I would also suggest the emphasis should be on the public nature of the trial in belfast which served both the men and woman badly.

Too sensible and practical and won't serve the anti male gender war.

the_pen_turner

irishrebe wrote: »

Then she's hardly likely to go to the Gardai and report it and put herself through a lengthy rape trial then, is she? Christ on a bike.

i know that but that wouldnt mean that she could , the guy would have broke the law

Ohmeha

The Talking Bread wrote: »

She also said she saw that PJ and the accuser were having sex.
PJ said he didn't have sex with her.

Now if she was able to determine whether everything was consensual, surely she would be capable to determine whether or not sex was occurring.
And if she was mistaken as to whether sex was actually happening, could you not imagine a situation when she may have been mistaken as to whether it was all consensual.

Jackson said he had digitally penetrative sex with the complainant.

Dara Florence could not confirm that she saw any genitally penetrative sex

Mrsmum

Flipper22 wrote: »

Expressing an active belief in her story can only be interpreted in one way.

If you believe her, then she was raped. Therefore they 'got away with it'

It is a big question. Boils down to perception. Personally I think it is very possible for a girl in this type of situation to feel her wishes were completely overridden whereas in the mind of the guy, he may genuinely feel she was just being encouraged to have a great time. Something like that. I say that as a woman who like all women imo know the pressure from guys to keep going further when you're trying to slow them down. Guys on here must also know how persistent thay can be in these situations.

the_pen_turner

Faugheen wrote: »

I know that, but like I said, it makes no difference to me as I'm trying to get into the heads if some people that just because you or some partners might like it, it doesn't mean they all do. As well as this, you have no right to do as you please just because someone is in your bed.

It should be those people you're saying this to, not me.

of course it would be rape in most cases , my point is that there could be one case where its not. but the law doesnt refect that

Silentcorner

Ohmeha wrote: »

Jackson said he had digitally penetrative sex with the complainant.

Dara Florence could not confirm that she saw any genitally penetrative sex

She didn't see any fingers either...

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that conversation was about waking up your partner with oral sex. A bit different to how you described it just now.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/enacted/en/print#sec48

(2) A person does not consent to a sexual act if—

(a) he or she permits the act to take place or submits to it because of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of the threat of the application of force to him or her or to some other person, or because of a well-founded fear that force may be applied to him or her or to some other person,

(b) he or she is asleep or unconscious

===

Oral sex and intercourse are sexual acts, it doesn't matter which one the person is talking about.

If you wake up a partner then proceed to give them oral sex, that's fine providing the partner is ok with it.

Waking up to a partner giving you oral sex, is wrong in the eyes of the law because it was initiated when the person is asleep.

What is it you don't get here?

Faugheen

Ohmeha wrote: »

Jackson said he had digitally penetrative sex with the complainant.

Dara Florence could not confirm that she saw any genitally penetrative sex

And Dara Florence could not confirm that the complainant was positively consenting.