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

Allinall wrote: »

Where did anyone, anywhere say that?

Perhaps read the words that are in front of you, rather than what you imagine the poster is saying.

I did. See the full quoted post below I was responding to.

tretorn wrote: »

You need to explain very clearly to young girls that going out in clothes that are very revealing, drinking to a point where you are past self control and leaving nightclubs with randomers you have just met is very risky behaviour.

You cant change the behaviour of other people but you can change how you conduct yourself out socialising.

There is nothing whatsoever for women in one night stands, no love, no intimacy, no concern by men for the woman, its wham bang and then man falls into a snoring alcohol filled sleep. He wont even remember what the woman looked like the next day but if she decides that she didnt get the respect she deserved then she can make an allegation of rape and everyone will believe her because, why would she, yadda, yadda, yadda

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

In law the onus is on the victim and the DPP to show the defendant has done something illegal not the other way round.

Sure. But legally everyone enjoys the presumption that by default, they have not consented.

So rape cases are a matter of somehow fitting the two of these things together.

The victim's assertion will be that consent was never given or was later withdrawn. Which is very difficult to prove - but should they have to?

After all, if I invited you to a party at my house and you took €50 that was sitting on a windowsill, the only thing I would really have to prove is that you took the money. You could certainly make an argument in your defence that I told you to take it. Then the horse-trading can begin around who said what.

But from the off it wouldn't be assumed by default that I said you could take it, or that by inviting you into my home that I should expect it would be taken or that I have implied it could be taken.

And if you think that creates a dangerous precedent in the case of rape, then you must be of the opinion that there are hoardes of people out there just champing at the bit to get a ride and then get their day in court.

martingriff wrote: »

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

I think if there was no evidence then no body would get locked up.
Somehow for rape people dont accept this logic.

In any case, the question I asked was would I not bear some responsibility for what happened?

professore wrote: »

Personally I think consent classes are really stupid.

Seeing as many people don't know what consent is, judging by this thread, the theory behind it is sound.

I've more of an issue with saying just Men™ have to have them. If you are doing it for one, do it for everyone. And the difference between not consenting to something, and removal of consent, after the fact.

If someone says NO or is asleep then it's clear if you continue you are a rapist. Consent classes won't make one iota of difference for someone who is of that mindset.

People are literally saying that if you go back to someones gaff, you have consented to whatever comes next. I'm a bloke, I went back to a mates house after a session, and his roommate who was out with us, got a bit gropey with me. I went back to their house, surely I was asking for it.

If consent classes worked, then we should also have theft classes, murder classes, fraud classes etc etc because the only reason any crime at all exists is because the poor criminals are too dumb to realise they are committing a crime.

I actually can't answer this bit, it's that daft.

If both parties are drunk and not sure what they are doing it's a very very grey area. In that case both parties have a responsibility to behave better, not just the man.

And all parties involved would surely be better off having more information regarding consent, before getting into something that involves consent?

Does anyone seriously think that the situation in Paddy Jackson's bedroom, regardless of your opinion of their guilt or innocence, wouldn't have happened had all parties had consent classes?

Maybe. Although drunken shenanigans between young people have been going on since day dot, I doubt it will change much.

Classes around the differences between male and female sexuality, precautions and appropriate behaviour would be far more effective.

What's appropriate behaviour, and who sets the standard for the class?

georgina toadbum wrote: »

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Children shouldn't get cancer and pedophiles shouldn't exist and murders should not happen either.........

Exactly, and you don't blame the children's clothes or something they did if they got cancer do you?

No, you just accept it happened. Same should be applied to a rape.

To be fair would you tell your own daughter its ok to go back to parties with lads you don't know when they are drunk at night ?
I tell me son's not to walk through a rough part of town alone at night, just incase
These things shouldn't happen but they do so don't best to try not put yourself in a situation where it is more likely to occur,

retro:electro wrote: »

She did not did she.

Palindrome, nice.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's like saying to somebody you should never be in accident with a drink driver because that is wrong and everyone knows it is wrong.
So drive away.

We all know 'in the real world' that you can still be hurt or injured by a drink driver.

But let's ignore that I wish to pontificate about perfect world's.

But we don't blame the passenger of the car the drunk driver drove, do we? We don't say that because it was the passengers birthday celebrations it was his fault. Or because he was the one that initiated the round of shots. The only one to blame is the person who got behind the wheel and made a poor and illegal decision.

Is the passenger responsible because he should have known the driver was drunk. Is he responsible because he failed to get the keys off the driver? Maybe he should have fought him for the keys I suppose. If there's no sign of a fight then maybe the passenger wanted to be driven. Maybe the driver was too drunk to know what he was doing and was egged on by other passengers.

Or maybe nobody except the person who put the key in the ignition is responsible.

Neyite wrote: »

But we don't blame the passenger of the car the drunk driver drove, do we? We don't say that because it was the passengers birthday celebrations it was his fault. Or because he was the one that initiated the round of shots. The only one to blame is the person who got behind the wheel and made a poor and illegal decision.

Is the passenger responsible because he should have known the driver was drunk. Is he responsible because he failed to get the keys off the driver? Maybe he should have fought him for the keys I suppose. If there's no sign of a fight then maybe the passenger wanted to be driven. Maybe the driver was too drunk to know what he was doing and was egged on by other passengers.

Or maybe nobody except the person who put the key in the ignition is responsible.

I'd blame the passenger also.

Neyite wrote: »

But we don't blame the passenger of the car the drunk driver drove, do we? We don't say that because it was the passengers birthday celebrations it was his fault. Or because he was the one that initiated the round of shots. The only one to blame is the person who got behind the wheel and made a poor and illegal decision.

Is the passenger responsible because he should have known the driver was drunk. Is he responsible because he failed to get the keys off the driver? Maybe he should have fought him for the keys I suppose. If there's no sign of a fight then maybe the passenger wanted to be driven. Maybe the driver was too drunk to know what he was doing and was egged on by other passengers.

Or maybe nobody except the person who put the key in the ignition is responsible.

The passenger is still in a car crash though, not being responsible for it isnt some powerful shield, anymore than not locking your car means no one will steal it.

Neyite wrote: »

But we don't blame the passenger of the car the drunk driver drove, do we? We don't say that because it was the passengers birthday celebrations it was his fault. Or because he was the one that initiated the round of shots. The only one to blame is the person who got behind the wheel and made a poor and illegal decision.

Is the passenger responsible because he should have known the driver was drunk. Is he responsible because he failed to get the keys off the driver? Maybe he should have fought him for the keys I suppose. If there's no sign of a fight then maybe the passenger wanted to be driven. Maybe the driver was too drunk to know what he was doing and was egged on by other passengers.

Or maybe nobody except the person who put the key in the ignition is responsible.

Well actually its settled law that if a person gets into a car knowing or believing the driver to be drunk and they are injured they will be found at the very minimum contributory negligent for their own injuries

Neyite wrote: »

It's hilarious that what a woman wears, consumes or place she socialises in is justification for her rape.

As if by her actions, ordinary men who are powerless over their urges turn into rapists and it's all her fault.

If that's the case, you'd imagine that men would get raped all the time for parading naked/wet /covered in soap around gym showers and changing rooms by all those gay men who also can't control those primitive manly urges.

Or, more likely: The men who have a rapey mindset target women who look and act like you described because they can easily overpower her, get what they want and also they know a prevailing social attitude will attribute at least some of the blame for the rape on the woman.

Ordinary, nice, decent men control their dicks, and don't stick it anywhere they know it's not wanted or they check if they aren't sure. Rapey fcukers pretend they can't control themselves, pretend they don't understand consent, and act like a short skirt made them do it.

Unfortunately we live in a world that has predators who like to take advantage. There is no excuse nor justification for rape but the unfortunate reality is that the police can only act after the fact. This means that it has to happen in the first place and by then, the damage is already done. I will be teaching my daughter to avoid scenarios and look out for the signs and also to learn to protect herself - unfortunately having too much to drink dampens these instincts and the ability to react or think clearly.

Women have every right to wear what they like and drink as much as they like without fear of attack, this unfortunately won't ever happen as the only person you have control over is yourself. Education will help clear up the blurred lines hopefully, but it won't do anything to stop predators. The only thing that can stop them is to not give them the chance in the first place.

This is just a fact of life and not just unique to humans, everywhere in nature we see animals surviving due to their instincts. I am well able to look after myself but I don't drink to the point of where my instincts are gone - I do enjoy a drink but not to excess and if I get a bad gut feeling, I move on. I don't put myself in positions where I could get attacked and I am mindful of what's going on around. I won't take a short cut to save a few mins if my instinct says it's a gamble and if I sense danger, I get away from it. I also surround myself with sensible friends who are not out looking for trouble and would share the same outlook as myself. This instinct has served me well but I know if I was inebriated, I wouldn't have that instinct.

As I said, I'm not condoning not justifying rape, I just think everyone needs to be aware and reduce the risks. It won't stop but it sure as hell will give you a much better chance.

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But legally everyone enjoys the presumption that by default, they have not consented.

Not a legal argument, sex is either consensual or non-consensual there is no default.

seamus wrote: »

So rape cases are a matter of somehow fitting the two of these things together.

The victim's assertion will be that consent was never given or was later withdrawn. Which is very difficult to prove - but should they have to?

Again legally the DPP needs to prove a crime so the DPP needs to prove the sex was non-consensual.

seamus wrote: »

After all, if I invited you to a party at my house and you took €50 that was sitting on a windowsill, the only thing I would really have to prove is that you took the money. You could certainly make an argument in your defence that I told you to take it. Then the horse-trading can begin around who said what.

But from the off it wouldn't be assumed by default that I said you could take it, or that by inviting you into my home that I should expect it would be taken or that I have implied it could be taken.

And if you think that creates a dangerous precedent in the case of rape, then you must be of the opinion that there are hoardes of people out there just champing at the bit to get a ride and then get their day in court.

Sex is not about one person talking something from the other, it is an act by two consenting adults.
You cannot consent to theft... Same way you cannot consent to assault... I could come to your party punch you in the face then argue you asked me to punch you in the face... But the DPP generally have a much better time proving theft or assault as consenting to it is not something that can happen.

The danger that you cannot seem to see is it sets a president that someone needs to prove their innocent opposed to the DPP proving their guilt.

Neyite wrote: »

But we don't blame the passenger of the car the drunk driver drove, do we? We don't say that because it was the passengers birthday celebrations it was his fault. Or because he was the one that initiated the round of shots. The only one to blame is the person who got behind the wheel and made a poor and illegal decision.

Is the passenger responsible because he should have known the driver was drunk. Is he responsible because he failed to get the keys off the driver? Maybe he should have fought him for the keys I suppose. If there's no sign of a fight then maybe the passenger wanted to be driven. Maybe the driver was too drunk to know what he was doing and was egged on by other passengers.

Or maybe nobody except the person who put the key in the ignition is responsible.

The passenger is STILL dead. And they might not be had they taken precautions.

The drink driver is responsible and to blame but the passenger is DEAD.

How can you miss the point so wonderfully here?

Personal responsibility is one thing but a young woman should still be to go to house with someone, engage in "sexual behaviour" but still have the right to stop at any stage or not go further than they are happy with.
I was young many years ago and it was common enough to go back to a house even to a bed with someone but full sexual intercourse was never expected as a right in those circumstances.

GreeBo wrote: »

What % of rapists do you believe dont know they are rapists?

Unless we can show that its a large %, then all the consent lessons in the world aren't going to make much difference.

Do we have "no murdering" lessons in school? If not, why not?

I'm not going to give you numbers, that's ridiculous.

But going by this thread, it seems pretty clear that there is significant confusion and/or disagreement about what constitutes consent.

And since the very definition of rape is that consent has not been provided, logically it follows that there is disagreement about what constitutes rape.

Which also logically follows that there are likely some individuals on this thread alone, never mind in general, who have committed rape but are unaware of it.

Your comparison with "no murdering" classes is nonsense, since we're not discussing "no raping" classes.