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

Sabre0001 · 04-04-2018 10:21AM

You can use whatever language you want BUT if it gets out - especially when you're used as a role model and your image is linked to sponsors (and that means whatever you do has a financial implication) - then you shouldn't be surprised if there are ramifications.

Everything we do can have a knock-on effect, especially once it gets into the media or it makes a financial impact. There was a woman fired from her job because she gave Trump the middle finger while cycling past his entourage and remember the PWC rating system from a few years back?

We might expect that conversations, etc. should be private, but we shouldn't. Someone could take a photo over our shoulder (people have gotten in hot water for looking at important presentations on public transport), there might be a security breach (celebrities had sensitive images leaked), we might download something that gives a third party access to our data and activity, etc. etc. etc.

The language used isn't limited to just this group, nor is it just men, but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions if made public. And especially when it hits a brand's bottom line.

joe40 · 04-04-2018 10:24AM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

What would you teach in consent class? "Don't use the word slut, ever."

These texts were sent in private so what does it matter how they were referring to anyone? It was a private conversation among friends, wasn't it?

A problem I am having here is that it seems like only 1 of the 4 accused used the word "slut"? So what are the other 3 guilty of? That they didn't say "don't use that word".

Would this whole thing be any better if they had said "delightfully promiscuous young lady"?

From what you've said here it seems that you would imagine a "consent class" as a vehicle for affecting people in such a way that even in private conversations they feel an authoritarian guiding hand influencing which words they use and how they use them.

Who are you to say what people should and should not say to each other in private?

How far would you like to take it? Should all conversations be made public and anyone falling foul of our acceptable behavior laws should face criminal charges and be punished by the state?

It is not the actual words themselves but the attitude they convey that is important. If I described a black person as a "negro" or a catholic as a "fenian" I am showing a derogatory attitude to those groups of people.
Probably actual consent classes would not help, would not help but overall the values of a society can change. They have already and overall for the better
This is not about words it is about mutual respect for each other.
If my daughter was with a guy who regularly refered to women as sluts he would be no man at all in my eyes.
I was a young man once as were my mates, plenty of sexual encounters with bragging, details etc but never once did anyone call another girl a "slut"
Adults here should be leading by example

FrancieBrady · 04-04-2018 10:26AM

razorblunt wrote: »

Loose/Easy.

I've heard this being used/referred to by women.

A friend of mine plays camogie at a relatively decent level, she has some stories about the carry on in their dressing rooms too. Let's not pretend this is male only. Wasn't "sooo Samantha" a thing for a while when Sex in The City was in its prime?

Not sure the presenters of Loose Women on telly would be happy with the comparison.

erica74 · 04-04-2018 10:28AM

I think, from the point of view of the IRFU, the bulk of the messages were part of a group chat, which means that a group of their players engage in that sort of language and sexual activity, which then may create the impression that this sort of thing is widespread with their players (the public are probably thinking "the rest are hardly angels if this is what their teammates get up to) and that is obviously (judging by the IRFU reaction to it all) not what they want people to associate their brand with.
Whether you agree that the messages were awful or grand or whatever, you can surely see this from the point of view of the IRFU and them protecting their brand.

I just wanted to add that, while I thought the messages were a bit dirty and I certainly wouldn't like to be spoken about like that, I don't think it's fair for the contributors to be vilified for things said in private texts. However, the private texts are now public and the IRFU (understandably) want to distance themselves from them.

FrancieBrady · 04-04-2018 10:31AM

joe40 wrote: »

It is not the actual words themselves but the attitude they convey that is important. If I described a black person as a "negro" or a catholic as a "fenian" I am showing a derogatory attitude to those groups of people.
Probably actual consent classes would not help, would not help but overall the values of a society can change. They have already and overall for the better
This is not about words it is about mutual respect for each other.
If my daughter was with a guy who regularly refered to women as sluts he would be no man at all in my eyes.
I was a young man once as were my mates, plenty of sexual encounters with bragging, detailsetc but never once did anyone call another girl a "slut"
Adults here should be leading by example

Negro and fenian do not describe behaviour and are not in themselves derogatory.

Are you proposing that you cannot say derogatory things about certain behaviours?

joe40 · 04-04-2018 10:36AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Negro and fenian do not describe behaviour and are not in themselves derogatory.

Are you proposing that you cannot say derogatory things about certain behaviours?

Ah c'mon now you know Its not talking about behaviour it is referring to people. The problem is referring to women as sluts. It is not complicated.
If our boy Leo called called Mary Lou a "fenian" she might well be privately pleased but there would be outcry.
My point is words and language are important

joe40 · 04-04-2018 10:40AM

Furthermore I'm not suggesting the players should be kicked off the team for their messages (leaving aside the court case) but it should warrant an apology and move on.

yourdeadwright · 04-04-2018 10:41AM

I wonder will schools around the country be forced to run classes to teach the women and men of this country that when one is found innocent on a court of law one should be looked on as innocent,

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There all loons ,
Could you imagine the outrage if there poor son's or Husbands where found innocent of something and then slandered all over the papers , They'd be marching for weeks,

Maxpfizer · 04-04-2018 10:42AM

joe40 wrote: »

It is not the actual words themselves but the attitude they convey that is important. If I described a black person as a "negro" or a catholic as a "fenian" I am showing a derogatory attitude to those groups of people.
Probably actual consent classes would not help, would not help but overall the values of a society can change. They have already and overall for the better
This is not about words it is about mutual respect for each other.
If my daughter was with a guy who regularly refered to women as sluts he would be no man at all in my eyes.
I was a young man once as were my mates, plenty of sexual encounters with bragging, details etc but never once did anyone call another girl a "slut"
Adults here should be leading by example

If those words are said in private conversations with friends then how can we, as outside observers, understand and make a judgement on the context of those words?

If I have a buddy who used any of the derogatory terms mentioned here in a private communication with me then I may have an understanding of how harmful or serious the use of those words are in that context, with that friend.

Is it right that, if this private message goes public, we are both on the hook? Him for using a naughty word and me for not giving him a stern talking to?

That's why I say that Consent Classes in this regard would appear to be an attempt to create an ideal person who "has the appearance of an organism lovely with colour and juice but is in fact only a clockwork toy to be wound up by God or the Devil or (since this is increasingly replacing both) the Almighty State."

FrancieBrady · 04-04-2018 10:43AM

joe40 wrote: »

Ah c'mon now you know Its not talking about behaviour it is referring to people. The problem is referring to women as sluts. It is not complicated.
If our boy Leo called called Mary Lou a "fenian" she might well be personally pleased but there would be outcry.
My point is words and language are important

If I call a woman a 'slut' to her face to demean her, of course that is wrong. It would be wrong to demean anyone with a word.

The term 'sluts' used in a private conversation in a general way is not demeaning any individual.

Slut appears in a dictionary with a whole host of other words. Are they all excised from the vocabulary now?

There are words most decent people will not use in specific contexts but the mob now want control of what words we use in all contexts.

yourdeadwright · 04-04-2018 10:44AM

What is worse ,
As private wats app group calling a women a slut and other not so nice tings things ,
Or a women seemingly falsely accusing 2 men of rape in public ? ( remember they where found not guilty as there was not evidence to back her story up )

zedhead · 04-04-2018 10:53AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I wonder will schools around the country be forced to run classes to teach the women and men of this country that when one is found innocent on a court of law one should be looked on as innocent,

There all loons ,
Could you imagine the outrage if there poor son's or Husbands where found innocent of something and then slandered all over the papers , They'd be marching for weeks,

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What is worse ,
As private wats app group calling a women a slut and other not so nice tings things ,
Or a women seemingly falsely accusing 2 men of rape in public ? ( remember they where found not guilty as there was not evidence to back her story up )

So i fully accept that they were acquitted of the charges and should be allowed to go on with their lives. I don't think their names should have been made public as it is in ireland, but it has happened now.

I think as public figures linked to the IRFU the details of the now public text messages and the attitudes they displayed should be reviewed (not the fact they were accused of rape).

The big problem I have is that people think that the not guilty verdict automatically think that it is a false accusation. Its not that there was not evidence to back up her story, its that there was reasonable doubt. Maybe because everyone had a different account of what happened. Or maybe because rape is incredibly hard to prove without doubt. What evidence do you think would have been accepted in a case like this as being inconclusive?

If she was charged and went through the courts now for a false accusation and found not guilty, would that mean these men were automatically guilty? No because they have already been found not guilty.

Because of so many people loudly proclaiming she is a liar who has ruined these boys lives, it deters victims from coming forward as the fear is without conclusive proof they will be seen the same way.

(for balance I have issues with the #ibelieveher going around as i don't think in the long run it is going to help. It is focusing too much on this case and really the issue is much bigger. Encouraging victims to come forward without fear of judgement)

Fann Linn · 04-04-2018 10:54AM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What is worse ,
As private wats app group calling a women a slut and other not so nice tings things ,
Or a women seemingly falsely accusing 2 men of rape in public ? ( remember they where found not guilty as there was not evidence to back her story up )

This should be fun.

Gunmonkey · 04-04-2018 10:58AM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Who are you to say what people should and should not say to each other in private?

How far would you like to take it? Should all conversations be made public and anyone falling foul of our acceptable behavior laws should face criminal charges and be punished by the state?

Well not everyone at first. First we would have those representing Ireland (int sports players, government ministers and ambassadors) before slowly moving onto anyone employed by the state (public servants, RTE/TG4/RTERadio presenters) and finally onto everyone else.

Now this system will have to be thorough; I'm talking emails, texts, whatsapp-style chata apps, letters, birthday cards, greeting cards, any form of recorded conversation, and this will be all released online for the public to peruse.

There will be the matter of compiling a database of "bad words" to filter the personal info for, but not that hard to create. At first it will be a 2 stroke system, so either the person themselves uses a bad word or the person communicates back with one of the banned phrases. Potential to evolve to a 3 stroke system, whereby any acquaintance of the defendant in question using a bad word outside of a communication with the defendant can be considered grounds for having the defendants career terminated....but that's getting ahead of ourselves, lets get the basic framework in place first!

joe40 · 04-04-2018 11:02AM

No I don't buy this idea of a "mob" trying to control our lives, or the "state" trying to create perfect organism.
Would you not agree that there were things commonly accepted in irish society 50 years ago that are not now so much so. Just to take 2 examples driving after drink and smoking in a bus. If I suggested in 1968 either of those things were wrong and should be changed I would have laughed out of my local pub.
Now they are accepted as normal. This is not controlling peoples lives or thought police or anything like this it is just promoting a fairer decent society.
I'm not saying there should be draconian punishments or restrictions on liberties just a bit of common decency.
I have a 12 year old son and a 14 year old daughter and overall happy with the society they are going out into, doesn't mean we can't still try to make it better. If that means telling both not to refer to women as sluts I'll do that.
Absolutely also accept court decisions I have already said that

yourdeadwright · 04-04-2018 11:02AM

zedhead wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

I wonder will schools around the country be forced to run classes to teach the women and men of this country that when one is found innocent on a court of law one should be looked on as innocent,

There all loons ,
Could you imagine the outrage if there poor son's or Husbands where found innocent of something and then slandered all over the papers , They'd be marching for weeks,

yourdeadwright wrote: »

What is worse ,
As private wats app group calling a women a slut and other not so nice tings things ,
Or a women seemingly falsely accusing 2 men of rape in public ? ( remember they where found not guilty as there was not evidence to back her story up )

So i fully accept that they were acquitted of the charges and should be allowed to go on with their lives. I don't think their names should have been made public as it is in ireland, but it has happened now.

I think as public figures linked to the IRFU the details of the now public text messages and the attitudes they displayed should be reviewed (not the fact they were accused of rape).

The big problem I have is that people think that the not guilty verdict automatically think that it is a false accusation. Its not that there was not evidence to back up her story, its that there was reasonable doubt. Maybe because everyone had a different account of what happened. Or maybe because rape is incredibly hard to prove without doubt. What evidence do you think would have been accepted in a case like this as being inconclusive?

If she was charged and went through the courts now for a false accusation and found not guilty, would that mean these men were automatically guilty? No because they have already been found not guilty.

Because of so many people loudly proclaiming she is a liar who has ruined these boys lives, it deters victims from coming forward as the fear is without conclusive proof they will be seen the same way.

(for balance I have issues with the #ibelieveher going around as i don't think in the long run it is going to help. It is focusing too much on this case and really the issue is much bigger. Encouraging victims to come forward without fear of judgement)

The #ibelieveher group are moron's,
Would anyone teach there children to believe someone they have never meet, seen or spoke to or would you say your probably better off looking at the evidence of things first, That's not a go at the girl that's just common sense,
How do these people think they know better than the Jury , its just really a stupid thing to say , That also goes with the guys I wouldn't believe them either without looking at the evidence,

Fann Linn · 04-04-2018 11:03AM

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Well not everyone at first. First we would have those representing Ireland (int sports players, government ministers and ambassadors) before slowly moving onto anyone employed by the state (public servants, RTE/TG4/RTERadio presenters) and finally onto everyone else.

Now this system will have to be thorough; I'm talking emails, texts, whatsapp-style chata apps, letters, birthday cards, greeting cards, any form of recorded conversation, and this will be all released online for the public to peruse.

There will be the matter of compiling a database of "bad words" to filter the personal info for, but not that hard to create. At first it will be a 2 stroke system, so either the person themselves uses a bad word or the person communicates back with one of the banned phrases. Potential to evolve to a 3 stroke system, whereby any acquaintance of the defendant in question using a bad word outside of a communication with the defendant can be considered grounds for having the defendants career terminated....but that's getting ahead of ourselves, lets get the basic framework in place first!

If only those Israeli's had called their victims 'sluts'.
One can only imagine the change from all the protest and offence.

Maxpfizer · 04-04-2018 11:05AM

Gunmonkey wrote: »

Well not everyone at first. First we would have those representing Ireland (int sports players, government ministers and ambassadors) before slowly moving onto anyone employed by the state (public servants, RTE/TG4/RTERadio presenters) and finally onto everyone else.

Now this system will have to be thorough; I'm talking emails, texts, whatsapp-style chata apps, letters, birthday cards, greeting cards, any form of recorded conversation, and this will be all released online for the public to peruse.

There will be the matter of compiling a database of "bad words" to filter the personal info for, but not that hard to create. At first it will be a 2 stroke system, so either the person themselves uses a bad word or the person communicates back with one of the banned phrases. Potential to evolve to a 3 stroke system, whereby any acquaintance of the defendant in question using a bad word outside of a communication with the defendant can be considered grounds for having the defendants career terminated....but that's getting ahead of ourselves, lets get the basic framework in place first!

We need to be sure to disregard context too.

Why stop at messages sent and received? Let's incorporate browsing history, Netflix preferences etc. Sure we could probably come up with an algorithm that predicts how likely it is that someone will use a certain word.

If it would end "Rape Culture" then I'm all for it.

Sure, if we're doing it for the greater good then what could possibly go wrong?

Lads, maybe we could alter language itself so that people won't even be able to think bad thoughts?

optogirl · 04-04-2018 11:09AM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

We need to be sure to disregard context too.

Why stop at messages sent and received? Let's incorporate browsing history, Netflix preferences etc. Sure we could probably come up with an algorithm that predicts how likely it is that someone will use a certain word.

If it would end "Rape Culture" then I'm all for it.

Sure, if we're doing it for the greater good then what could possibly go wrong?

Lads, maybe we could alter language itself so that people won't even be able to think bad thoughts?

browsing history etc are routinely used in police investigations. Nevin's Hitman for hire? Text messages from Dywer to Elaine O'Hara? O'Reilly's emails to his sister about how much he hated his wife.....etc etc

Maxpfizer · 04-04-2018 11:11AM

joe40 wrote: »

If that means telling both not to refer to women as sluts I'll do that.

You could TELL them not to refer to women that way but would you be willing to FORCE them not to refer to women that way?

For me, that's a valid and important talking point here. These Whatsapp messages were private and not intended to be read by anyone other than the recipients.

ONE person used the forbidden word but all 4 recipients are shouldering the blame and that blame is spreading to society at large.

Use of said words is being portrayed as a legit danger to society in the form of Rape Culture.

However, we do not know these men. I doubt many of us would want to. We don't know the dynamics of their friendships and so we don't fully understand the context under which the bad words were used.

Society: You can't say that!
Individual: How can you stop me?

What's the next move for our society?

tretorn · 04-04-2018 11:11AM

If you are applying for an ESTA visa to get into the States you now have to supply details of all your online accounts.

tritium · 04-04-2018 11:12AM

joe40 wrote: »

It is not the actual words themselves but the attitude they convey that is important. If I described a black person as a "negro" or a catholic as a "fenian" I am showing a derogatory attitude to those groups of people.
Probably actual consent classes would not help, would not help but overall the values of a society can change. They have already and overall for the better
This is not about words it is about mutual respect for each other.
If my daughter was with a guy who regularly refered to women as sluts he would be no man at all in my eyes.
I was a young man once as were my mates, plenty of sexual encounters with bragging, details etc but never once did anyone call another girl a "slut"
Adults here should be leading by example

The important word here is regularly. The WhatsApp chat is a single snapshot of one conversation. It’s remarkable the double standard that says parading the accusers knickers as evidence she’s promiscuous is wrong but parting the texts as evidence the accused are misogynists is fine. Neither are particularly useful evidentially, they were both used to blacken the other side in a game of “like me more”, which is pretty sad. Shame on both legal teams and their associated support networks in this case

yourdeadwright · 04-04-2018 11:12AM

Also in the wats ap group no names where used , I'm sure every single person on the march has spoken badly of someone before , I don't get the big deal over the wats ap group ,
Lads calling a girl that par took in a 3some a slut is nothing new at all. I really don't get the outrage if they thought she was a slut that's there own business really , its not nice to say but its not a crime
If anything it shows no rape took place as there is no way they would talk about it in a wats app group,

professore · 04-04-2018 11:15AM

joe40 wrote: »

I have a 12 year old son and a 14 year old daughter and overall happy with the society they are going out into,

As the father of a 20 year old daughter who luckily communicates with me in an open and honest fashion you have NO IDEA what it's like out there- unless you are from 12 onwards in favour of liberal drug taking, drinking vodka and having sex in fields, parties where some of the parents are worse than some of the teenagers, e.g. a mother of one of the daughters shifting a 14 year old boy - that party I had to bring my daughter home from early as she was scared at what was going on, I've seen and heard so much it's unbelievable.

Dick pics and nudes galore.

Literally nothing would surprise me. Having a few drinks underage in a pub or a smoke at the back of a bicycle shed seems quaint now.

And these are not "working class" people either.

hill16bhoy · 04-04-2018 11:20AM

anthonyjmaher wrote: »

Four high profile people are found innocent of rape.

At least try and get your facts right before posting.

Two people were on trial for rape, not four.

And they weren't found innocent of the crime.

professore · 04-04-2018 11:20AM

I also find it bizarre that using the woman's knickers as evidence is somehow horrific but the idea that she would go back to the house with 4 men she doesn't know from Adam drunk where sex was obviously the logical conclusion or at least on the menu is somehow less so?

All sorts of sex acts are not shameful but seeing a woman's knickers is? For the record I don't think sex is shameful - well obviously rape is, but consensual sex is fine.

What sort of society is so fixated on a WOMAN'S KNICKERS that you can see flapping in the breeze on washing lines up and down the country?

Utterly bizarre. The weirdest double standard yet.

joe40 · 04-04-2018 11:23AM

Maxpfizer wrote: »

You could TELL them not to refer to women that way but would you be willing to FORCE them not to refer to women that way?

For me, that's a valid and important talking point here. These Whatsapp messages were private and not intended to be read by anyone other than the recipients.

ONE person used the forbidden word but all 4 recipients are shouldering the blame and that blame is spreading to society at large.

Use of said words is being portrayed as a legit danger to society in the form of Rape Culture.

However, we do not know these men. I doubt many of us would want to. We don't know the dynamics of their friendships and so we don't fully understand the context under which the bad words were used.

Society: You can't say that!
Individual: How can you stop me?

What's the next move for our society?

I agree it is no good if behaviour is "forced" I don't want to get caught up on one whatapp message I have already said accept apology and move on.
If I used the word sluts at work I would lose a lot of respect from colleagues. It would not be acceptable or appropriate. I'm fine with that

optogirl · 04-04-2018 11:25AM

professore wrote: »

I also find it bizarre that using the woman's knickers as evidence is somehow horrific but the idea that she would go back to the house with 4 men she doesn't know from Adam drunk where sex was obviously the logical conclusion or at least on the menu is somehow less so?

All sorts of sex acts are not shameful but seeing a woman's knickers is? For the record I don't think sex is shameful - well obviously rape is, but consensual sex is fine.

What sort of society is so fixated on a WOMAN'S KNICKERS that you can see flapping in the breeze on washing lines up and down the country?

Utterly bizarre. The weirdest double standard yet.

I've gone to hundreds of parties in my time - drunken sex was NEVER the logical conclusion or 'on the menu'.

Fann Linn · 04-04-2018 11:26AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

At least try and get your facts right before posting.

Two people were on trial for rape, not four.

And they weren't found innocent of the crime.

Were any crimes proved?

hill16bhoy · 04-04-2018 11:30AM

tayto lover wrote: »

You haven't responded to my request for the stats regarding your Irish prison rape culture claim.

John Lonergan says there is a culture of sexual abuse and rape in Irish prisons.

But sure what would he know, he was only the governor of Mountjoy.

Far better to listen to you, or something.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/doubling-up-in-prisons-creating-culture-of-sex-abuse-warns-former-mountjoy-governor-30242066.html

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

Comments