wexie wrote: » I'm just reading this :https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html Personally I feel that the whole 'undermining the verdict' horse seems to have bolted and gone at this stage. But I was just curious (I'm sure I've missed it somewhere along the line) who the second person is to take civil proceedings?
upandcumming wrote: » They don't care if 500 innocent people go down for every guilty person convicted.
jm08 wrote: » That is one case in approx. 2,000 rape trials a year in the UK.
Jimbob1977 wrote: » Was Minister Richard Bruton already planning to include 'consent classes' in Primary School?
jm08 wrote: » That is one case in approx. 2,000 rape trials a year in the UK. It is noticeable that the right wing press (Telegraph, Daily Mail, and some very right wing bloggers) were after Ms Saunders blood.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » Liam Allen, Dr Dharmasena, Dr Mohame, Isaac Itiary are some other cases. But regardless, the Pearson's case was humiliating... Guy walking, one hand on his shoulder bag another hand holding his newspaper is "charged" with rape, walking past a women on the subway..... She should of been sacked for this instance alone!
joe40 wrote: » This not in relation to the belfast trial. I'm no lawyer but surely there are cases where a woman is not fit to give consent, at that time eg passed out due to intoxication, but a man believes he has permission so proceeds to have sex. In his mind it is consensual but it is still a rape. It is different if consent on the womans part is withdrawn during the act but this is not communicated until afterwards, or genuine misunderstanding occurs. Also in terms of a girl that is underage there may be willing consent but the man is still in trouble. I always thought ignorance of the law is not a defence
ArthurDayne wrote: » It would be extremely difficult for a man to claim that he had reasonable grounds for believing that an unconscious woman consented to sex -- whether it was a stranger or indeed his partner. In fact, Irish statutory law actually explicitly sets out sleep/unconsciousness as being a state in which consent cannot be given -- this is found under section 48 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017. url]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html[/url
Deleted User wrote: » I wonder how that would play out in the case where it was agreed beforehand then one partner changes their mind. As far as I know in assault type cases a conviction can be gotten even if the "victim" agrees in advance what's going to happen. Would advance consent hold no matter what?
garbo speaks wrote: » If it were ever true, 'consent classes' would be the single stupidest, most idiotic, pointless rubbish ever conceived of to include into the Irish educational curriculum. It would be degrading to our teachers as educators to have to cover such nonsense, not to mention in being absolutely humiliating to our children. What kind of message would be sent to the children of our country from government in that they need to literally be "taught" how not to rape someone? How would that help the self-esteem of young boys with schools treating them as 'rapists by default'? It really sounds like some sort of deranged Orwellian scenario concocted by the pc wackos to try and brainwash an entire generation of children.
Synode wrote: » That's shocking. Why the hell would the PPS take a case when the PSNI recommended no charge. Completely ruined the 4 lads lives
psinno wrote: » It does say a lot if only right wing press are bothered about a sexual assault prosecution that supposedly happened in a crowded place but had no witnesses or forensics , cctv footage shows nothing and where the accuser failed to pick out the accused in a lineup.
LLMMLL wrote: » It didn't say the police recommended no charge. It says they've been asked (by who?) If it was recommended.
A source said: “Rape is one of the most serious criminal complaints police handle and they took the claims very seriously from the get-go. “They interviewed the complainant. They interviewed the four men several times. They interviewed witnesses. “They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge. There was a feeling they didn’t have what’s needed for a rape case to stand up. The case went to trial. The result was unanimous. The men were found not guilty.”
LLMMLL wrote: » It didn't say the police recommended no charge. It says they've been asked (by who?) If it was recommended. I'm guessing it's PJs solicitors putting this out to middy the waters. Just like the English and French clubs wanting him to play for them but him refusing as he only wants to play for ulster. I'm sure that rumour wasn't started by him with an eye to generating back onto the ulster team.
The PSNI could also be drawn into the query and it is believed a request may be made for police case notes and all early thoughts and recommendations about the matter. A source said: “Rape is one of the most serious criminal complaints police handle and they took the claims very seriously from the get-go. “They interviewed the complainant. They interviewed the four men several times. They interviewed witnesses. “They examined a lot of details on all sides and in the end they recommended no charge. There was a feeling they didn’t have what’s needed for a rape case to stand up. The case went to trial. The result was unanimous. The men were found not guilty.”
jm08 wrote: » The cctv footage seems to have been manipulated. Now, who and why would do that?
Crucial CCTV footage in a "bizarre" sex assault prosecution had been slowed down by the authorities to give a misleading impression of events, the defence solicitor in the case has revealed.
jm08 wrote: » Its still one case in approx. 2000. And the prosecution did say that there was evidence other than the cctv footage. The cctv footage seems to have been manipulated. Now, who and why would do that?
bodice ripper wrote: » I take the verdict at face value; they were not found to be rapists. If their lives are screwed up now, I am fine with that too. Because they were demonstrably **** heads, and it got out. Ah well.
Synode wrote: » Lovely attitude. I'm sure you're a saint in real life
tritium wrote: » It doesn’t bother you in the slightest that “it got out” because of a ****ty system that denies the accused anonymity and lets the prosecution just throw mud for the sake of something might stick ? I guess your ok with the young lady’s name getting out there too since she also uses such lovely language to describe people? I sometimes despair for humanity..
facehugger99 wrote: » There's a certain standard of human decency and they fell far below it. Given PJ and SO work in jobs that depend to a large extent on corporate sponsorship money, they should have been far more circumspect and chivalrous in their behavior. My sympathies for them are limited. They are ultimately responsible for their own behavior. Behavior that many find distasteful to put it mildly.
psinno wrote: » It was manipulated under instructions of the DPP. The accuser said the assault lasted 2 to 3 seconds and the footage was slowed down to make the gaps between frames seem longer. It was slowed down from 1 frames a second to 1 frame every 2 seconds.
tritium wrote: » Based on his evidence Jackson’s view would be that he had consensual sexual activity with a young lady who came on to him while he was hammered. The jury appears to believe that’s credible based on 9 weeks of evidence. What exactly did he do that fell “below a certain standard of human decency”?
jm08 wrote: » Have you a link for that? Its still one case in 2000. What do you propose - just don't bother with rape cases because they are too difficult to prosecute?
But it can now be disclosed that - to the concern of Mr Pearson's legal team - the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) supplied original CCTV depicting the alleged assault in an amended format which gave a misleading impression of the incident.
The changes made in the CPS's version of the video were critical because the case hinged on whether Mr Pearson could have committed the assault in that amount of time - and the CCTV gave the impression the window was twice as long as it was in reality. The lawyer said: "Before the trial this storyboard was served to the CPS with a request that they review their decision to go ahead with the prosecution. They went ahead anyway. "If we had not taken the steps we had, the CCTV would have been presented to the jury at that amended speed.
The actress, who is in her 60s, was wearing a coat and jacket and a thin dress over “training pants” following a yoga class, the jury heard.
jm08 wrote: » What do you propose - just don't bother with rape cases because they are too difficult to prosecute?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
