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

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Louise O'Neill shared it on Twitter!

Who is Louise O'Neill in relation to this?
Just googled her, never heard of her before, I'm not on Twitter but she seems to have shared a few "screenshots" of similar messages. Sounds all like a load of made up rubbish.

erica74 wrote: »

Who is Louise O'Neill in relation to this?

Louise O Neill is a feminist Irish writer. She says we have a rape culture. She followed the hashtag campaign. She said that people sent her messages about Paddy Jackson jokes on nights out.

seamus wrote: »

Although I do love that you assume I was talking about a man, so you swing this into "balance of power" argument in relation tconsented.

What are you on about? I never mentioned genders when referring to your €50 theft analogy. The only time I did so was when referencing the arguments being made by *other users* (not you) and yes, they have been primarily arguing in the context of a man being accused of raping a woman, and for good reason too, as the reverse is almost unheard of.

seamus wrote: »

No. The prosecution's position is that the money was taken.

lol.What do you mean, No?? YES, seamus, the prosecution will absolutely try to prove that someone on trial for stealing €50 "took it" without permission.

Remember, you initially gave this analogy to try and suggest that women in rape trials (or the complainant in rape trials if you want to play silly buggers) are required to do far more than someone that had €50 taken from their home by someone who is claiming that they were given permission to take it, but they're really not..... as in both instances the prosecutions will still have to try and prove that something was taken without permission/consent.

I have to say though that I find it odd that you are implying that courts are unfair to complainants but yet then suggest with the following that they should have to show less than someone who had €50 stolen from them:

The victim's assertion will be that consent was never given or was later withdrawn.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?

Of course they would have to..... otherwise it's Guilty Until Proven Innocent.

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.

Nope, you / the prosecution would not just have to show the person took the money, you / the prosecution would have to show that the person took the money 'without permission'.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That she couldn't find something better or 'witty' so just cobbled some nonsense together.

Peatys wrote: »

It's a go-to pose for wedding photographers. 4 or more lads arm over each others shoulder as if getting ready to scrum.

But is that not just a few lads with their arms over each other's shoulders? Why would anyone immediately think it was a rugby stance? Not that I believe for one second that it actually happened. If I saw a few lads standing like that, I'd think "oh look at those lads with their arms around each other" not "oh look, rugby stance"

erica74 wrote: »

Sorry, I literally have never heard of her before. They were quick out of the traps with jokes, weren't they? It literally couldn't sound more made up!

To be honest I'd believe it.
I heard similar jokes about Larry Murphy shortly after he was released.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be honest I'd believe it.
I heard similar jokes about Larry Murphy shortly after he was released.

The rapist Larry Murphy? Wtf?

erica74 wrote: »

It's very very different though. OEJ was suggesting children would be taught something without their parents consent. We're talking about a parent consenting to what their child is educated about not sexual activity in a bedroom.
Parents enrol their children, there is an agreement and information about what education their child will receive. Parents are perfectly entitled to go to the school and say I don't agree with my child being taught x and y (now, obviously I don't know the situation there, I think you'd have to get the board of education involved maybe?) because it doesn't fit in with their beliefs.

Ahh right, ok that's fair enough if you weren't aware that parental consent must be sought by the school in order that their children be allowed to participate in sex and relationships education programmes either run by the school or outsourced to an outside organisation. Parents don't have to go to the school to say they don't agree with their child being taught whatever is being taught in sex education, it's the school has to seek permission, or consent if you will, from the parents.

It's just when you said this -

erica74 wrote: »

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.

Parents have that right according to Irish Constitutional law as their children's primary educators with regard to the moral education of their children, and in that respect, having seen some of the sex education programmes on offer to schools, I wouldn't want my son being given the impression that sexual promiscuity is acceptable behaviour, particularly given the rise in rates of STI infections in Ireland in the last number of decades.

Now that view may be old fashioned to some people, and I've met some of those people who argue for policy changes to sex education in Irish schools so that children will be taught values and ideas which I, as my child's parent, am not ok with. I would love to see a sex education programme deal only with the facts, but, unfortunately, all too often, depending upon who is delivering the programme, facts are all too often sacrificed in favour of promoting the ideology of the proponents of said programmes. The Minister for Education actually made an announcement about this today, so it will be interesting to see how this develops -

Minister Bruton starts major update of Relationships and Sexuality Education

Fortunately, contrary to popular belief all too often bandied about on Boards even, parents actually are invited to be involved in the process of delivering an appropriate sex education programme in the school, and it's not just a matter of the Board of Management deciding for themselves what the children in the school will be taught with regard to sex education. There are a number of stakeholders involved, and not just the patrons of the school making that determination either.

lawred2 wrote: »

Can't see much irony there at all.

It's treating young people as individuals in their own rights and not just a product of their parents.

The irony is of course is the idea of teaching children about consent, without obtaining consent from their parents that they should be taught about consent. It is the parents who make decisions in how their children are to be educated, and it is the parents who advocate for their children, not the children themselves.

erica74 wrote: »

The rapist Larry Murphy? Wtf?

It was just very standard stuff such as My name is Larry Muphy or don't be afraid I'm not Larry Murphy. People went off with the lads that used it. So, it worked.