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

erica74

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.

upandcumming

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What these lads allegedly did is really stupid (and I don't necessarily believe it), but you have to expect some stupid reaction in line with these ridiculous protests going on.

Amirani

No idea what "in rugby stance" even means.

Whole thing seems a bit incredible ^^

RoboRat

Amirani wrote: »

No idea what "in rugby stance" even means.

Whole thing seems a bit incredible ^^

It's Louise O'Neill... enough said.

freshpopcorn

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.

Peatys

"seems to have given the message"
Yeah, based on a sample size of 1.

Lock us all up.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Peatys

Amirani wrote: »

No idea what "in rugby stance" even means.

Whole thing seems a bit incredible ^^

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

Outlaw Pete

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'.

posturingpat

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It means it's a load of stupid girls making up ****e.

RoboRat

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

erica74

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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.

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!

erica74

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"

sightband

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!

I haven’t heard a single paddy Jackson joke either

freshpopcorn

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.

erica74

sightband wrote: »

I haven’t heard a single paddy Jackson joke either

Sorry, I meant that sarcastically. I don't think any Paddy Jackson jokes were made, nor do I think any of those screenshots have any truth in them.

erica74

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?

kylith

GreeBo wrote: »

Apologies, it was obvious in my head since rape is only rape when its proven, but point taken!

No, rape is rape when someone has sex with someone else against their will.

If some guy comes in and has sex with me while I am asleep, or pins me down and forcibly inserts his penis is me, or I allow him to have sex with me because he puts a gun to my head, or I'm too drunk to fight some guy off it does not mean that it is not rape just because he isn't found guilty in a court.

Not being found guilty of a crime does not mean that the crime was not committed. Al Capone was still a gangster and racketeerer, even though he was only found guilty of tax evasion.

professore

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can I clarify, you were both at least partially naked, he was on top of you and you consented to kissing only?

If this is the case it is very ill advised and dangerous. Especially after a good few drinks.

sightband

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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

Any good ones that I could just replace with Paddy Jackson and sound funny? I’m headed out later on and I am socially inept misogynistic rape culture advocate like the rest of us so I could do with a few gags to tell the lads from my dwarf sex sado masochistic fan club WhatsApp group

One eyed Jack

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.

Peatys

sightband wrote: »

Any good ones that I could just replace with Paddy Jackson and sound funny? I’m headed out later on and I am socially inept misogynistic rape culture advocate like the rest of us so I could do with a few gags to tell the lads from my dwarf sex sado masochistic fan club WhatsApp group

What's your number and I'll hook you up..

freshpopcorn

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.

hill16bhoy

freshpopcorn wrote: »

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.

And she's 100% correct in that assertion, as proved by this thread.

professore

Seems to me that the kind of sex certain women are having is very much 2018 - but their communication around it is still back somewhere in the 1950s.

Guys have actually evolved a lot but women have if anything gone backwards in the last 30 years. The rugger bugger types are an exception rather than the rule, hence the success of Ross O'Carroll Kelly because his attitude to women and life in general is so ridiculous it's hilarious.

They don't bring condoms with them, despite having lots of casual sex boasting to their friends about it.
They don't seem to understand casual sex is a risky activity in all sorts of ways. Especially as a woman.
They think it's a good idea to rub themselves all over a man naked they don't know from adam and expect that to be OK and perfectly safe 100% of the time
They judge men on what they wear yet if they dress like a porn star they are horrified if a man treats them as such
They are shocked and horrified when men use terms like "spit roasting" but yet say they are sexual beings and have no issue with films like 50 shades or Magic Mike
They throw themselves at celebrities and then can't understand why they act "entitled" and don't want to marry them
If a guy does treat them with respect he is cheated on and made fun of. If he doesn't he's a ****boy.

I'm not surprised men are tuning out of relationships and women in general at an increasing rate.

ShowMeTheCash

hill16bhoy wrote: »

And she's 100% correct in that assertion, as proved by this thread.

What this thread also seems to prove is we live in a SJW and femanazi culture where kangaroo courts of the emotionally charged and ill informed run rampant on social media and online forums void of logic and practicality....

What does culture mean?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Tell me how

hill16bhoy wrote:

And she's 100% correct in that assertion, as proved by this thread.

Nope.

ShowMeTheCash wrote:

What this thread also seems to prove is we live in a SJW and femanazi culture where kangaroo courts of the emotionally charged and ill informed run rampant on social media and online forums void of logic and practicality....

Also nope.

professore

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok that makes more sense. At first it sounded like you were both naked and he was a complete stranger. Fair enough.

.......

This post has been deleted.