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

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Olding looks like a monkey (described by the woman as this)
Jackson is a short arse, looks 15, with hair like a wire scrubbing brush.
Harrison has a neck the size of his head.
Mingers

Is this necessary? These guys should have had their identity protected [as happens down south] and likely we wouldn't be here endlessly discussing their antics after a drunken night out;

They were found not guilty btw

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Olding looks like a monkey (described by the woman as this)
Jackson is a short arse, looks 15, with hair like a wire scrubbing brush.
Harrison has a neck the size of his head.
Mingers

To be honest, ugly people make up the majority of people having all kinds of sex.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Olding looks like a monkey (described by the woman as this)
Jackson is a short arse, looks 15, with hair like a wire scrubbing brush.
Harrison has a neck the size of his head.
Mingers

No need for that. Their looks are irrelevant. You’d be the first in here mouthing off if it was the woman’s looks being scrutinised and ridiculed.

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Your witty facetiousness exposes one of the core fallacies around rape and consent - the idea that it's simple and straightforward. Only evil and violent people commit rape, and reasonable and rational people could never find themselves being accused of it. It's the "only criminals misuse guns" argument in a different jacket.

When it's clearly much more nuanced than that; and as we see from the outcome of many rape trials, there is apparent disagreement on what "rape" actually is.

There's also something of a parallel with vaccination and herd immunity. While 99% of people are reasonable and don't desire to hurt anyone, there is that 1% (figures illustrative) who may not be reasonable and don't care about hurting others.

When the 99% are left to their own devices, they don't hurt eachother, but they are still open to the whims of the 1%. They don't know how to react to a violator. And violators themselves are not aware that their behaviour is frowned upon. Their behaviours and attitudes can then bleed out and spread, and others, who were part of the 99%, believe it is acceptable, because the violators aren't punished (socially) for their behaviour.

By including education on the ideas of consent, you arm the 99%. Not only are they then aware of how to react when they encounter a violator, they are also guarded against violators spreading their poisonous behaviours and attitudes.

The violators then become isolated and may change their behaviour.

Preventing rape is not about catching rapists. A person is not a rapist until they've raped. So catching rapists doesn't prevent rape.

Preventing rape requires preventing rapists. And for that you need to educate everyone. Because you have no idea who may be a rapist and who may be a victim until the crime has occurred.

GreeBo wrote: »

If I was wandering around Barcelona half cut with my wallet hanging out of my arse pocket, how much sympathy do you think i'd get when it was stolen?

But you were still a victim of a robbery and your case would be looked at or do you think if you car was robbed our house burgled the cops would not investigate it the perpetrator not sent to jail if they were open

tretorn wrote: »

If you behave like this you will get the name of being a slut, other women will be the first to call you a slut, men will too but they are delighted to get what they want most of all in the world for free, casual sex at no cost to their wallet and no annoying woman looking to be taken out on dates, meals out and then looking for committment.

Its absolutely great if all women want is casual sex too, the problem is some women want more, they want something "meaningful" and when they dont get that they start to feel resentful and then maybe thoughts turn to as to what actually was the womans part in what happened and next thing woman believes she was raped. Its the mans word against hers and now metoo which is the greatest load of ****e ever will encourage the woman to see herself as the victim and then a rape claim is made.

That appeals to your morals, which is grand.

Some people want to have casual sex, and get into exciting sexual situations like a threesome and whathaveyou.

Doesn't stop unconsenting sex being rape though.

tretorn wrote: »

Yes there are plenty of men and women who like sex with multiple partners, its called threesomes and spit roasting.

Other people who like monogamy think the sort of sex you describe is depraved and the men who take part are scum and animals.

what do they (you?) think of the women who take part in such activities?

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I dont understand why men feel threatened by women liking casual sex.
I f"$ked a German guy on my last holiday, and it was great. I met an Australian woman travelling around, and She was meeting up with 2-3 guys in each new city she arrived in. Life's for living!

Women like this, just as much as men like this.

It seems the Catholic church in Ireland has told men that women must be virgins. Come on we are in 2018

Honey your views don't reflect mine. SOME women might like "this""

retro:electro wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Serious question , Is there footage of the bar that night ?
Iv heard people on social media say the women in question can be seen putting her hand uninvited on Kyle Lafferty's thigh and he then removes it ? Is this true does anyone know ?

She did not did she! The scut.

Personally means nothing to me but I'm just wondering how have the public see the video ?
Although maybe Kyle could join the #me2 movement or can you only join if your a women ?

tretorn wrote: »

Did she ask for consent though, isnt that the whole point.

Why do you think its a crime for a man to put his hand on a woman but you scoff at anyone questioning a woman intruding on a mans private space.

If the man in question didnt move his hand does that mean he was up for further sexual contact or is moving his hand enough.

In Iceland you now have to say Yes so him removinghis hand mightnt be enough.

The double standards are just so despicable.

Feminists want men to have incredible high standards but yet a strnage woman can put her hand wherever she likes and this isnt a problem at all.

Eh last time checked it wasn’t a crime to touch someone’s thigh. If he asked her to remove it and she was relentless, then yes that is a violation. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and call for all casual contact to be ceased. If you don’t know the difference between how inappropriate it is to touch someone’s boob vs a casual touch on a thigh mid conversation then I’m afraid I can’t help you there.
And I’m not a Feminist. Old school yes, but by today’s standards no.

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed. Sounds like a brilliant and well thought out initiative.