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

Christy42

Mr.H wrote: »

But that's the thing. You just need to look at the people reporting the 8% stat and see if they have an agenda for putting forward a manipulated figure

I also have to wonder about those dismissing it pretty much out of hand. (In fact I try and wonder about every figure I can). I mean the article in question did not even seem to consider that only looking at conviction rates when a case has been brought to court would bring in an incredible amount of bias to their figures and I have to wonder why.

Simply put looking at motives can tell me it as not as big a deal as those reporting make out but I can't dismiss that there could still be a significant gap between rape cases and other crimes.

tritium

Here’s an interesting piece from the UK in 2014. It’s light on analytical detail but it nicely illustrates the brain dead mob mentality that accompanies crime statistics

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10834569/Conviction-rate-for-sex-crime-in-sudden-drop.html

Conviction rates drop! Shock what could be wrong. Well it looks like you actually brought lots more cases but didn’t really get any convictions there. Yet the political capital is in claiming victims are being failed rather than asking how we got all these extra trials. This is particularly pertinent when you look at the push under Kerr Stamner and then Alison saunders to bring more cases on the basis it would somehow lead to more convictions

foxyladyxx

Wheety wrote: »

Said on the radio that it is the first time in 20 years they are updating the sex education curriculum.

You'd think with all of the new technology which provides young people with numerous methods of meeting/contacting people and sending explicit images that it would have been updated before now.

It should be looked at every 2-3 years.

You have to remember that the court case in question happened in a UK court. ~

We at least protect the identity of victims and accused down south . Certainly more could be done when it comes to handling victims of rape cases.

It is good to see that the education curriculum is being changed .Education around the area of consent should be taught. I have to say I have learnt a lot I didn't know through reading posts here on the case and of course by taking into account the judge's summing up.

freshpopcorn

erica74 wrote: »

That's because of the involvement of the catholic church in our schools.

Most people can agree that sex is an enjoyable act and it feels good, as long as it's all consenting adults and willing participants then everyone should be able to enjoy it in whatever form they want.
Sex and relationships need to be explained to children and young adults in different age appropriate ways, the more informed they are, the less inclined they are to view it as a secretive act and the more likely they are to actually understand what it's all about. And there is an age at which sex education should begin and that's not 18 or 16, in my opinion, it should be 12 or so. However, there is a certain amount of information that should also be imparted to under 12s. It is a part of the curriculum that needs to be specifically designed for every age
As long as the catholic church are involved in our schools, this isn't possible.

Sex education when I was in school (I did my leaving cert in 2006) was all sex was out of bounds until you got married and then you only had sex to have children. There was no information about the act itself, contraception, relationships, love, consent, putting pressure on anyone etc etc etc. There was no proper sex education.

I was in secondary school in the mid 2000's and we discussed condoms. So it was possible for us in a catholic Irish secondary school!

Mrsmum

erica74 wrote: »

That's because of the involvement of the catholic church in our schools.

Most people can agree that sex is an enjoyable act and it feels good, as long as it's all consenting adults and willing participants then everyone should be able to enjoy it in whatever form they want.
Sex and relationships need to be explained to children and young adults in different age appropriate ways, the more informed they are, the less inclined they are to view it as a secretive act and the more likely they are to actually understand what it's all about. And there is an age at which sex education should begin and that's not 18 or 16, in my opinion, it should be 12 or so. However, there is a certain amount of information that should also be imparted to under 12s. It is a part of the curriculum that needs to be specifically designed for every age
As long as the catholic church are involved in our schools, this isn't possible.

Sex education when I was in school (I did my leaving cert in 2006) was all sex was out of bounds until you got married and then you only had sex to have children. There was no information about the act itself, contraception, relationships, love, consent, putting pressure on anyone etc etc etc. There was no proper sex education.

Just two week ago I attended the parental talk prior to our 6th class childrens' sex education talk. So they get the biology business and then lots of talk about respect and dealing with pressure etc. One father actually asked was sex not taught in the confines of marriage or at least within a relationship and the lady from Accord who gives the school talks said absolutely not. Marriage or long term relationship were not mentioned to the children. Other parents wondered if this was portraying a free for all attitude. So maybe it is parents themselves that are longing for simpler times.

[Deleted User]

I haven't read the whole thing but has this come up at all, sexual boasting of the kind on the snap chat conversation is a sign of poor self-belief they brag and put a woman down in front of other men to make themselves feel big about themselves.

Now why four good-looking Succesful men felt the need to do that is another issue.

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

Just two week ago I attended the parental talk prior to our 6th class childrens' sex education talk. So they get the biology business and then lots of talk about respect and dealing with pressure etc. One father actually asked was sex not taught in the confines of marriage or at least within a relationship and the lady from Accord who gives the school talks said absolutely not. Marriage or long term relationship were not mentioned. Other parents wondered if this was portraying a free for all attitude. So maybe it is parents themselves that are longing for simpler times.

Yes parents can be very conservative.
I know schools who tried to run internet safety days/weeks/etc and some parents wanted them stopped/banned.

seamus

erica74 wrote: »

However, there is a certain amount of information that should also be imparted to under 12s.

The basics of consent are something that can be bedded in really early - teaching children not only how to respect other people's personal space, but also to give them the confidence to tell someone else when they are violating that space.

Kids do have a concept of personal space, they do hate it being violated (how many of use had to be manhandled into giving a hug or a kiss to a granny?), but they usually don't recognise how to verbalise their discomfort appropriately, or to recognise that their peers also have boundaries.

So if we can teach them this really early - like 4/5/6, then building that up into discussing consent and sexual activity at 10/11/12 years of age shouldn't be at all weird or complex for them, it's just an extension of what they already understand.

In turn then that knowledge will filter up and out to parents - the kids will come home discussing what they learned and having the confidence to tell their Mum, "Please leave me alone, I don't feel like a hug right now".

neonsofa

foxyladyxx wrote: »

It is good to see that the education curriculum is being changed .Education around the area of consent should be taught. I have to say I have learnt a lot I didn't know through reading posts here on the case and of course by taking into account the judge's summing up.

In fairness, in primary school consent is discussed (in an age appropriate way) as part of their sexual and relationships education. As part of their talk on puberty they are, at least in our local school, taught about bodily autonomy, peer pressure,online safety, "don't send a message or picture that you wouldn't want your granny to see", it's all done in a very natural, age appropriate way and they gradually tie it into sex education as the kids get older. It's an extremely well thought out programme delivered by an external facilitator.

It's a huge improvement on my education which was a video of an old woman holding a love heart and discussing that sex is between husband and wife. It seems that it isn't offered in all schools as a rule, but it is obviously very doable.

erica74

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was in secondary school in the mid 2000's and we discussed condoms. So it was possible for us in a catholic Irish secondary school!

That's mad, we were taught nothing, shown nothing, sex was in marriage, end of discussion.

freshpopcorn

mariaalice wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thing but has this come up at all, sexual boasting of the kind on the snap chat conversation is a sign of poor self-belief they brag and put a woman down in front of other men to make themselves feel big about themselves.

Now why four good-looking Succesful men felt the need to do that is another issue.

To be honest groups of men/women have talked about their sexual acts for years and sometimes the chat might be considered vulgar.

erica74

Mrsmum wrote: »

Just two week ago I attended the parental talk prior to our 6th class childrens' sex education talk. So they get the biology business and then lots of talk about respect and dealing with pressure etc. One father actually asked was sex not taught in the confines of marriage or at least within a relationship and the lady from Accord who gives the school talks said absolutely not. Marriage or long term relationship were not mentioned to the children. Other parents wondered if this was portraying a free for all attitude. So maybe it is parents themselves that are longing for simpler times.

I can't believe anyone is still that backward! That's absolute madness. It's trying to create an image of sex outside of relationships as something "bad" or "wrong" which is totally absurd!
I'm glad thatchildren are getting a sex education now, a lot seems to have changed since my school days, but still a way to go.

TerrorFirmer

erica74 wrote: »

That's mad, we were taught nothing, shown nothing, sex was in marriage, end of discussion.

I would say that's on the extreme end of the scale and certainly not typical.

I would've been given sex education in a Catholic school in the late 90s and while it was certainly lacking - and that probably is a somewhat universal experience - it was relatively impartial (nothing about marriage or the purely procreation function of sex, condoms of course mentioned).

The catholic ethos is nowhere near as strong in most schools as some people make out (not saying you were specifically, just a general point).

tritium

Christy42 wrote: »

I also have to wonder about those dismissing it pretty much out of hand. (In fact I try and wonder about every figure I can). I mean the article in question did not even seem to consider that only looking at conviction rates when a case has been brought to court would bring in an incredible amount of bias to their figures and I have to wonder why.

Simply put looking at motives can tell me it as not as big a deal as those reporting make out but I can't dismiss that there could still be a significant gap between rape cases and other crimes.

It’s interesting you make that point. Let’s consider the reporting of attrition rates and possible bias. Whose statistics would I use. Maybe drcc figures

http://www.drcc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Dr-Paul-OMahony.ppt

Well, a 1in 40 attrition rate seems wildly biased here based on the UK figures (unless they’re radically more efficient across the Irish Sea). The very loose denominator is the main culprit here. Interestingly they attempt to come up with attrition rates for other crimes and these are comparable to the UK rape estimates.

There are a number of studies on the reasons for attrition. For example

http://oro.open.ac.uk/15302/2/44F845E5.pdf

While there is a difficulty getting unbiased research (from either side) it’s generally conceded that a significant number of cases fall off due to lack of sufficient evidence. While improved police investigation techniques may help here (the absence of this was highlighted by the prosecution in this case) ultimately the burden of proof will always be (rightly) challenging

[Deleted User]

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest groups of men/women have talked about their sexual acts for years and sometimes the chat might be considered vulgar.

No banter or even vulgar banter is not the same thing, calling the woman or women sluts is different.

How come we never hear about the man or men who leave the conversation when that starts because they won't take part or the man who didn't need to tell his friends about some woman he had a one night stand with.

The everyone is doing bit is also amazing. They lie to their wife or partner about how they talk about a woman with other men so therefore because they do it every man is doing it.

erica74

seamus wrote: »

The basics of consent are something that can be bedded in really early - teaching children not only how to respect other people's personal space, but also to give them the confidence to tell someone else when they are violating that space.

Kids do have a concept of personal space, they do hate it being violated (how many of use had to be manhandled into giving a hug or a kiss to a granny?), but they usually don't recognise how to verbalise their discomfort appropriately, or to recognise that their peers also have boundaries.

So if we can teach them this really early - like 4/5/6, then building that up into discussing consent and sexual activity at 10/11/12 years of age shouldn't be at all weird or complex for them, it's just an extension of what they already understand.

In turn then that knowledge will filter up and out to parents - the kids will come home discussing what they learned and having the confidence to tell their Mum, "Please leave me alone, I don't feel like a hug right now".

Yes to all of this, it sounds great, building up the idea of consent and the different situations concerning consent as children grow up.

tritium

seamus wrote: »

The basics of consent are something that can be bedded in really early - teaching children not only how to respect other people's personal space, but also to give them the confidence to tell someone else when they are violating that space.

Kids do have a concept of personal space, they do hate it being violated (how many of use had to be manhandled into giving a hug or a kiss to a granny?), but they usually don't recognise how to verbalise their discomfort appropriately, or to recognise that their peers also have boundaries.

So if we can teach them this really early - like 4/5/6, then building that up into discussing consent and sexual activity at 10/11/12 years of age shouldn't be at all weird or complex for them, it's just an extension of what they already understand.

In turn then that knowledge will filter up and out to parents - the kids will come home discussing what they learned and having the confidence to tell their Mum, "Please leave me alone, I don't feel like a hug right now".

I’d thank this twice if I could!

freshpopcorn

erica74 wrote: »

I can't believe anyone is still that backward! That's absolute madness. It's trying to create an image of sex outside of relationships as something "bad" or "wrong" which is totally absurd!
I'm glad thatchildren are getting a sex education now, a lot seems to have changed since my school days, but still a way to go.

Parents can be very resistant to change. I was watching Loose Women(I know) one night. It was something to do with a new curriculum being introduced about sex education from the age of six.
They were nearly all against it as were the poll they carried out.
People are to thick tough to know it's all done age appropriate.

Mrsmum

erica74 wrote: »

I can't believe anyone is still that backward! That's absolute madness. It's trying to create an image of sex outside of relationships as something "bad" or "wrong" which is totally absurd!
I'm glad thatchildren are getting a sex education now, a lot seems to have changed since my school days, but still a way to go.

I suppose it's just that the world of teenage sex is really scary for parents to handle. You can no longer control your little darlings & you worry, worry, worry all the time and not about rape at all but pregnancy, STIs, group sex, videos out there, reputations etc etc etc. And yeah you can be really up to date and give them all the correct info and guidance but they are notorious for ignoring it all. So yeah I can understand how parents of teenagers kinda wish they could brainwash their teenagers intio thinking sex was exclusively for marriage.

wexie

I'm not really the only one here who feels that sex education isn't solely the responsibility of schools am I?
Or education regarding respect and consent (not just in a sexual context)?

I see people here giving out 'we weren't taught in school'....
Kids need to know about respecting other people's beliefs, preferences, oddities, personal space etc. etc. long before sex education comes into play

Mrsmum

wexie wrote: »

I'm not really the only one here who feels that sex education isn't solely the responsibility of schools am I?
Or education regarding respect and consent (not just in a sexual context)?

I see people here giving out 'we weren't taught in school'....
Kids need to know about respecting other people's beliefs, preferences, oddities, personal space etc. etc. long before sex education comes into play

Excellent point.

freshpopcorn

mariaalice wrote: »

No banter or even vulgar banter is not the same thing, calling the woman or women sluts is different.

How come we never hear about the man or men who leave the conversation when that starts because they won't take part or the man who didn't need to tell his friends about some woman he had a one night stand with.

The everyone is doing bit is also amazing. They lie to their wife or partner about how they talk about a woman with other men so therefore because they do it every man is doing it.

People know how to talk within their social circle in my experience.
Men/Women can talk to their friends about their sex lives and sometimes it gets detailed and I have heard women call other women sluts in the past and get very detailed about things. The chat is often acceptable.

erica74

wexie wrote: »

I'm not really the only one here who feels that sex education isn't solely the responsibility of schools am I?
Or education regarding respect and consent (not just in a sexual context)?

I see people here giving out 'we weren't taught in school'....
Kids need to know about respecting other people's beliefs, preferences, oddities, personal space etc. etc. long before sex education comes into play

Definitely not just the responsibility of schools. However, I grew up with an abusive mother, an alcoholic father and a brother who sexually abused me and there was no sex education in my family nor in my school. And I'd imagine a lot of children are in a similar situation with there being no sex education at home for many different reasons.
Sometimes it's easier when it's not your parents telling you, less embarrassing, sex education in school may help children verbalise questions and concerns to their parents.
If sex education is a set curriculum, someone's individual opinion can't change what's being taught. What I mean by this is, a parent may have an old fashioned view of sex, may have a negative view of sex etc and this will colour what they teach their child, whereas a sex education curriculum will deal with facts rather than individual opinions.

In relation to your last paragraph, seamus's post sets out an excellent idea with regard to teaching about consent, personal space etc from a very early stage.

seamus wrote: »

The basics of consent are something that can be bedded in really early - teaching children not only how to respect other people's personal space, but also to give them the confidence to tell someone else when they are violating that space.

Kids do have a concept of personal space, they do hate it being violated (how many of use had to be manhandled into giving a hug or a kiss to a granny?), but they usually don't recognise how to verbalise their discomfort appropriately, or to recognise that their peers also have boundaries.

So if we can teach them this really early - like 4/5/6, then building that up into discussing consent and sexual activity at 10/11/12 years of age shouldn't be at all weird or complex for them, it's just an extension of what they already understand.

In turn then that knowledge will filter up and out to parents - the kids will come home discussing what they learned and having the confidence to tell their Mum, "Please leave me alone, I don't feel like a hug right now".

foxyladyxx

freshpopcorn wrote: »

People know how to talk within their social circle in my experience.
Men/Women can talk to their friends about their sex lives and sometimes it gets detailed and I have heard women call other women sluts in the past and get very detailed about things. The chat is often acceptable.

I wonder if that was a common term to use in that area [Belfast] seeing that both the guys and the girl in question used it?

I know when my daughter was at school they referred to each other as ''fatso''. . My daughter was accused of bullying by a teacher and I had to go in and explain that it was just slang that the pupils used when referring to each other as friends

Colser

Mrsmum wrote: »

I suppose it's just that the world of teenage sex is really scary for parents to handle. You can no longer control your little darlings & you worry, worry, worry all the time and not about rape at all but pregnancy, STIs, group sex, videos out there, reputations etc etc etc. And yeah you can be really up to date and give them all the correct info and guidance but they are notorious for ignoring it all. So yeah I can understand how parents of teenagers kinda wish they could brainwash their teenagers intio thinking sex was exclusively for marriage.

I agree ,as soon as they head out its a constant worry whether they're boys or girls and regardless of what age they are...I do think though that we as parents should be taking a much tougher stance on things like phones,internet access etc and not expecting teachers to have to cover all that with children and not getting support from the parents.

I know this sounds old fashioned etc but I've always hated seeing young children with phones ,they don't need them imo unless a basic one with just calls/texts.

I can't say I was shocked at the whatsapp messages,I think if any of us could see what's on the phones of people we interact with everyday it would be an eyeopener.

We need to take responsibility for our own children,we can't expect the schools/teachers to educate them re. online activity and then for them to have full unsupervised access once they come home.

I'd support a ban on phones for young children tbh but I think the horse has well bolted on that one.

[Deleted User]

erica74 wrote: »

In relation to your last paragraph, seamus's post sets out an excellent idea with regard to teaching about consent, personal space etc from a very early stage.

This already does happen in schools. My 6 year old was learning about situations such as those mentioned, for example a relative always asking them to sit on their knee etc.

suicide_circus

It's a good job they are teaching consent in schools. When I was a youngster we all thought rape was fine.

freshpopcorn

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I wonder if that was a common term to use in that area [Belfast] seeing that both the guys and the girl in question used it?

I know when my daughter was at school they referred to each other as ''fatso''. . My daughter was accused of bullying by a teacher and I had to go in and explain that it was just slang that the pupils used when referring to each other as friends

I often hear the word slut used from both men and women used to describe people and I'm the same age as the people involved. Even from our parents the word would be used.
I've never heard a man/woman of any age saying all women are sluts tough just certain people.

freshpopcorn

I actually think it's important to do consent classes in school rather than college mainly because,
Not everybody goes to college.
It will probably happen the in the first week of first year and everybody would probably go out the night before and try and get out of it.
Then of course after the class it would be straight to the pub and see who'd end up going off with her.
Just based on my college class!

kylith

wexie wrote: »

I'm not really the only one here who feels that sex education isn't solely the responsibility of schools am I?
Or education regarding respect and consent (not just in a sexual context)?

I see people here giving out 'we weren't taught in school'....
Kids need to know about respecting other people's beliefs, preferences, oddities, personal space etc. etc. long before sex education comes into play

Unfortunately many parents are simply too embarrassed to get into the nitty gritty of sex education with their children.