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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

erica74

Heres Johnny wrote: »

Why do women demand that all men respect and put them on a pedestal?
Then the same women call men pigs and scum and other such names?

I've worked in offices with women and I've spent a lot of time in their company and the amount of anti male sentiment said in front of men about men is much more vicious and frequent than the other way around.

Our shortcomings are routinely mocked, ive heard us called stupid, not understanding, insensitive pricks etc.....

To be honest, women can say what they want about men I don't actually care. And I mean that. The only time it annoyed me was when I reciprocated with anything negative about women there was genuine bad feeling towards me despite it being a single comment one way in response to numerous the other way. The hypocrisy annoyed me more than anything they could possibly say. Men are not perfect, were not in tune with female psyche for the most part but that's life. If you want to give it you have to take it too.

So women get over it, men talk that way and women talk that way too.

You didn't win the battle of genders in court that this case created somehow and its being perpetuated now over the words they said and trying to ensure they suffer for them. Talking about other people is not a crime. You didn't get the outcome you wanted so move on and shut up.

Every race thinks they are oppressed by the white race. And white women think they are oppressed by men. Travellers think they are oppressed by settled white people. It's getting boring.

I'm surely going to be blasted for this and called misogynistic and other names but I don't really care.

This post actually reminded me of something. I used to work for this woman, her and her husband ran the business together so they were both the boss. She routinely debased him in front of us and to us and would always try to encourage us to join in.
She would say things like "Pat's a man, you know how men are". She would also try to draw comparisons between her husband and my husband, by saying things like "Pat's a man, sure your husband would be like that too, they're all like that". This would come up in situations where her husband might forget to do something or tell someone something. She would say these things to mean you have to keep reminding him about these things "because he's a man".

Anytime she tried to draw comparisons with my husband (one of the most forgetful people on the planet but his gender has nothing to do with his forgetfulness), I used to shoot her down straight away and act like I had no idea what she was talking about when she said these things and insisted my husband wasn't like that and therefore not all men are like that.

My point is that if you don't agree with sexism or degrading speech or whatever, speak up, don't just go along with what your friends or superiors are saying just so you "fit in" or because you don't want to make things awkward or whatever. And that goes for women and men because both sexes can be sexist.

There are a fair few contributors to this thread who have said Oh loads of men and women speak in a derogatory manner but they don't speak that way themselves. If you hear other people speaking like that and don't agree with it, do you tell your friends, family and coworkers that you don't agree with the way they're speaking about someone they've slept with or someone they work with? Because if you stay silent about it then you can't really complain about it.

GreeBo

jm08 wrote: »

With themselves mostly (according to Jacko, Olding & McIlroy anyway).

So now you are saying that the woman who made rape accusations wasn't actually there at all?

Or perhaps you are saying that she isn't a woman?

Or perhaps you are just posting nonsense.:cool:

GreeBo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where is there any proof of this?

Outrage doesn't require proof, didn't you get the memo!

Now as to why there isn't outrage from these same people regarding the possible ruination of 4 lives?
That'd be because of the penis factor.

GreeBo

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah, so much so that they tell their best friends, end up making a complaint to the police, then in a witness stand for 8 days getting aggressively questioned by barristers on the most intimate details of their lives in a public court setting.

So now the mere fact of making accusations is enough to sway reasonable doubt?

Seems like a legit way to run society.

tritium

An outstanding article

https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/ewan-mackenna-gilroy-and-walsh-made-abhorrent-comments-but-why-would-anyone-want-them-as-role-models-to-begin-with-36778765.html

facehugger99

GreeBo wrote: »

So now the mere fact of making accusations is enough to sway reasonable doubt?

Seems like a legit way to run society.

Society isn't a court of law.

Sponsors won't make decisions based on the burdens of things being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You may not like this but it's the reality.

I don't know exactly what went on that night, you don't either.

All we know for certain is a drunk teenager left PJ's house sobbing hysterically and bleeding after being spit roasted by two guys that were twice the size of her.

That I believe is not being contested by anyone.

You may choose to believe that she subsequently decided to put herself through a humiliating public ordeal for some nefarious reasons.

I may reach a different conclusion.

But if PJ and SO think that everything just goes back to normal - sorry lads, not going to happen.

jm08

LLMMLL wrote: »

And apparently the girl who disapproved of the other girls being "slutty" and is in photos getting ready to leave then not only takes part in a threesome but is the sole instigator of it.

One of Dara's friends was so drunk she passed out on a couch. That could be described as 'slutty behavour'.

Since you were not there, you haven't a clue as to who instigated what.

ArthurDayne

erica74 wrote: »

This post actually reminded me of something. I used to work for this woman, her and her husband ran the business together so they were both the boss. She routinely debased him in front of us and to us and would always try to encourage us to join in.
She would say things like "Pat's a man, you know how men are". She would also try to draw comparisons between her husband and my husband, by saying things like "Pat's a man, sure your husband would be like that too, they're all like that". This would come up in situations where her husband might forget to do something or tell someone something. She would say these things to mean you have to keep reminding him about these things "because he's a man".

Anytime she tried to draw comparisons with my husband (one of the most forgetful people on the planet but his gender has nothing to do with his forgetfulness), I used to shoot her down straight away and act like I had no idea what she was talking about when she said these things and insisted my husband wasn't like that and therefore not all men are like that.

My point is that if you don't agree with sexism or degrading speech or whatever, speak up, don't just go along with what your friends or superiors are saying just so you "fit in" or because you don't want to make things awkward or whatever. And that goes for women and men because both sexes can be sexist.

There are a fair few contributors to this thread who have said Oh loads of men and women speak in a derogatory manner but they don't speak that way themselves. If you hear other people speaking like that and don't agree with it, do you tell your friends, family and coworkers that you don't agree with the way they're speaking about someone they've slept with or someone they work with? Because if you stay silent about it then you can't really complain about it.

Apologies all for another lengthy post on my part but I think this post from Erica74 is a good one and worthy of discussion. Perhaps I can add to it for the purposes of demonstrating why we need to be so careful in adopting an attitude of pontificating about banter and the extent to which people should be punished for it.

I can assure you that I am a very average-looking and somewhat potato-headed guy, but there was an older lady in the office who came out with some very politically incorrect banter -- for example referring to me once as 'sex on legs' (I can't imagine she was serious). I was a little embarrassed but to be perfectly honest with you, I laughed and it caused me no hurt or upset in any way. In fact, I do enjoy when people show a little bit of edgy humour in the grey formal drudgery of life in the corporate world. Now, I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone is like me and I know well that everyone has their own limits and sensitivities as regards what is funny and what is offensive. I'm also aware why these things can be taken differently when said from male to female rather than vice versa.

Nonetheless, if I called a girl in the office 'sex on legs', I would be liable for disciplinary action and even potential dismissal. The nature of the dismissal would, if it were to happen, most likely be based on sexual harassment. Having said that however, even if no such threat of dismissal existed, I still wouldn't call a girl 'sex on legs' as I don't think it would be taken very well and I'd personally just feel a little seedy saying it. My point is -- banter is an extremely subjective and context-sensitive thing. We must be quick to ensure that we have a social and professional environment where people are not made to suffer wholesale subjective 'banter' which amounts to abuse, bullying or harassment, but also slow to simply publicly label those dishing out the banter as deviants or misogynists without the most genuine of cause.

There is a fine line between ensuring that we, bearing in mind that we are nothing more than relatively intelligent apes, control ourselves in order to facilitate a peaceful and tolerant society where everyone can feel comfortable -- but also accept the fact that humour and banter are a very natural part of our lives and even if sometimes it is crude and tasteless, it can be a release from the stifling pressure society and life in general can place us under. We cannot move towards a 'thought police' world where every crude utterance we make is deemed to be conclusively indicative of our beliefs. I say some pretty horrendous stuff to my mates in jest and I am just as guilty of 'lad banter' as anyone else. I bitch about people behind their backs and slag them off -- yes it's cowardly and distasteful -- but anyone who says they don't do it is either an impressively moral person or a complete liar. Have I made crude comments about girls I've slept with to my friends? Yes. Have I said things about them that I would not be proud of if they were made public knowledge? Yes.

Yet, from the beliefs I have espoused on this site, where I am protected behind the safety of a pseudonym and can say a great deal of things without fear of being identified, do I come across as a misogynist or a sexual deviant? I am not saying that, even if we are free to say things legally, we should just say them without any sense of sensitivity for the feelings of others. There is nothing wrong with holding people to account for the things they say -- but the practice of categorising them for the things they say seems to be drifting ever closer to a world where, as Richard Gephardt said : "If we demand that mere mortals live up to this standard, we will see our seats of government lay empty, and we will see the best, most able people unfairly cast out of public service.

We need to stop destroying imperfect people at the altar of an unobtainable morality."

jm08

GreeBo wrote: »

So now you are saying that the woman who made rape accusations wasn't actually there at all?

Or perhaps you are saying that she isn't a woman?

Or perhaps you are just posting nonsense.:cool:

I was making a (poor) joke about there obviously being a shortage of women for 3somes as Jacko & Olding, and Jacko & McIlroy seem to have to share a lot.

FrancieBrady

tritium wrote: »

An outstanding article

https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/ewan-mackenna-gilroy-and-walsh-made-abhorrent-comments-but-why-would-anyone-want-them-as-role-models-to-begin-with-36778765.html

The 'arbitrary moral guidebook' has gotten a fair thumping around this parish!

upandcumming

jm08 wrote: »

You don't have to be a prude to think that having sex with multiple partners you've picked up outside a nightclub is downright stupid and morally questionable.

But the people that were picked up are good to go?

GreeBo

facehugger99 wrote: »

Society isn't a court of law.

Sponsors won't make decisions based on the burdens of things being proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You may not like this but it's the reality.

I don't know exactly what went on that night, you don't either.

All we know for certain is a drunk teenager left PJ's house sobbing hysterically and bleeding after being spit roasted by two guys that were twice the size of her.

That I believe is not being contested by anyone.

You may choose to believe that she subsequently decided to put herself through a humiliating public ordeal for some nefarious reasons.

I may reach a different conclusion.

But if PJ and SO think that everything just goes back to normal - sorry lads, not going to happen.

Sorry but what has society got to do with anything in my post exactly?
Did I mention sponsors or society at all?

You are implying that the woman in question wouldnt have gone to court just because she changed her mind, ergo she must have been telling the truth.
Ergo, we should do away with the whole trial process as no one would put themselves through it unless they were telling the truth.

I'm calling that out as ridiculous, kangaroo court nonsense that belongs in a banana republic.

But we can clearly see your opinion when you post things like "twice the size of her", "hysterical", "bleeding" as if they are somehow relevant. If the complainant was smaller than the accused, would that be a point in favour of the defence? Damn sure it wouldnt.

These "facts" are no proof of a damn thing, as evidenced by a verdict. But you can keep banging that drum, sure there is no smoke without fire right?

People like you do such a disservice to normal, sane woman and men and frankly poison the whole legal process and the purpose of a jury.

tretorn

What most sane people have taken from the trial is the incredibly short time the not guilty on all accounts verdict came through.
The rugby authorities should re instate those men immediately. They have worked hard for their team and loyalty has to count for something, its time now to man up to the lesbian feminist mob, the point is most normal women dont like them either and are tired of listening to them banging on.
People look at the men who have been acquitted and say enough already. They see how young they are and you cant put old heads on young shoulders. The whatsapp texts are a sideshow, private messages sent between a group of lads in their twenties and would be fairly typical of that age group.
You might get a few harpies parading outside but their purple hair, tattoos, nose rings and obesity put most people off them. They wont pay any money to get inside the grounds so wont interfere with the game. If anyone shouts rapist inside the grounds they can be removed and arrested, you cant shout rapist at innocent people and get away with it.

foxyladyxx

tretorn wrote: »

What most sane people have taken from the trial is the incredibly short time the not guilty on all accounts verdict came through.
The rugby authorities should re instate those men immediately. They have worked hard for their team and loyalty has to count for something, its time now to man up to the lesbian feminist mob, the point is most normal women dont like them either and are tired of listening to them banging on.
People look at the men who have been acquitted and say enough already. They see how young they are and you cant put old heads on young shoulders. The whatsapp texts are a sideshow, private messages sent between a group of lads in their twenties and would be fairly typical of that age group.
You might get a few harpies parading outside but their purple hair, tattoos, nose rings and obesity put most people off them. They wont pay any money to get inside the grounds so wont interfere with the game. If anyone shouts rapist inside the grounds they can be removed and arrested, you cant shout rapist at innocent people and get away with it.

Ooh Tretorn . You are sailing very close to the wind with that post . .but have to admit you made me laugh because most of what you have said mirrors my own thoughts.

[Deleted User]

tretorn wrote: »

What most sane people have taken from the trial is the incredibly short time the not guilty on all accounts verdict came through.
The rugby authorities should re instate those men immediately. They have worked hard for their team and loyalty has to count for something, its time now to man up to the lesbian feminist mob, the point is most normal women dont like them either and are tired of listening to them banging on.
People look at the men who have been acquitted and say enough already. They see how young they are and you cant put old heads on young shoulders. The whatsapp texts are a sideshow, private messages sent between a group of lads in their twenties and would be fairly typical of that age group.
You might get a few harpies parading outside but their purple hair, tattoos, nose rings and obesity put most people off them. They wont pay any money to get inside the grounds so wont interfere with the game. If anyone shouts rapist inside the grounds they can be removed and arrested, you cant shout rapist at innocent people and get away with it.

over three-quarters of all the op posts are on this thread :P

harpsman

tritium wrote: »

An outstanding article

https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/ewan-mackenna-gilroy-and-walsh-made-abhorrent-comments-but-why-would-anyone-want-them-as-role-models-to-begin-with-36778765.html

From the man who creamed his pants at the thought of rugby players AND Northern Protestants getting done for rape. Wouldn’t take Ewans virtue signaling too seriously

harpsman

facehugger99 wrote: »

Sure, and some people can get very upset/hysterical after sex and it does mean they were raped.

So what?

None of us actually know what went on in that room that evening.

But for a young woman to put herself through the public ordeal that she went through after some ‘regret-sex’, well, that’s just doesn’t seem a plausible reason to me.

Because a lot of people are saying if she was hysterical then “something”, ie rape, happened.

She’s obviously not been telling the truth so as Sherlock Holmes said “once you’ve eliminated the impossible whatever remains no matter how implausible must be the truth “

Yeah_Right

I see some sadcases have taken out an ad in the Belfast Telegraph demanding that Olding and Jackson never play for Ulster again. I have to congratulate them on not including Harrison and McIlroy in the ad. They're clearly a bit smarter than the idiots on Twitter. Apparently the ad even demands a response from Ulster Rugby :rolleyes:

I wonder how many of the 139 people who contributed money to the ad have been to an Ulster recently. Or ever.

Heres Johnny

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I see some sadcases have taken out an ad in the Belfast Telegraph demanding that Olding and Jackson never play for Ulster again. I have to congratulate them on not including Harrison and McIlroy in the ad. They're clearly a bit smarter than the idiots on Twitter. Apparently the ad even demands a response from Ulster Rugby :rolleyes:

I wonder how many of the 139 people who contributed money to the ad have been to an Ulster recently. Or ever.

Was just about to post that about the lesbians and feminists ad in newspaper.
Short haired non washing weirdos. Get a grip women.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/more-than-100-people-take-out-ad-in-newspaper-to-demand-jackson-and-olding-do-not-play-for-ulster-or-ireland-36780731.html

Lux23

tretorn wrote: »

What most sane people have taken from the trial is the incredibly short time the not guilty on all accounts verdict came through.
The rugby authorities should re instate those men immediately. They have worked hard for their team and loyalty has to count for something, its time now to man up to the lesbian feminist mob, the point is most normal women dont like them either and are tired of listening to them banging on.
People look at the men who have been acquitted and say enough already. They see how young they are and you cant put old heads on young shoulders. The whatsapp texts are a sideshow, private messages sent between a group of lads in their twenties and would be fairly typical of that age group.
You might get a few harpies parading outside but their purple hair, tattoos, nose rings and obesity put most people off them. They wont pay any money to get inside the grounds so wont interfere with the game. If anyone shouts rapist inside the grounds they can be removed and arrested, you cant shout rapist at innocent people and get away with it.

What I think most sane, decent people will take from this trial is that despite the Not Guilty verdict - these lads behaved in a way that does not befit the role of a person who represents their country and individuals that young children look up to. You might get a few troglodytes in ill-fitting Ireland replica shirts spitting out their pints in disgust at the craven women who dare to demand even a very low level of respect as fellow human beings, but the vast majority of men and women are appalled by the behaviour of these adult men and belive they should never be allowed to wear an Irish jersey again.

Grayson

erica74 wrote: »

This post actually reminded me of something. I used to work for this woman, her and her husband ran the business together so they were both the boss. She routinely debased him in front of us and to us and would always try to encourage us to join in.
She would say things like "Pat's a man, you know how men are". She would also try to draw comparisons between her husband and my husband, by saying things like "Pat's a man, sure your husband would be like that too, they're all like that". This would come up in situations where her husband might forget to do something or tell someone something. She would say these things to mean you have to keep reminding him about these things "because he's a man".

Anytime she tried to draw comparisons with my husband (one of the most forgetful people on the planet but his gender has nothing to do with his forgetfulness), I used to shoot her down straight away and act like I had no idea what she was talking about when she said these things and insisted my husband wasn't like that and therefore not all men are like that.

My point is that if you don't agree with sexism or degrading speech or whatever, speak up, don't just go along with what your friends or superiors are saying just so you "fit in" or because you don't want to make things awkward or whatever. And that goes for women and men because both sexes can be sexist.

There are a fair few contributors to this thread who have said Oh loads of men and women speak in a derogatory manner but they don't speak that way themselves. If you hear other people speaking like that and don't agree with it, do you tell your friends, family and coworkers that you don't agree with the way they're speaking about someone they've slept with or someone they work with? Because if you stay silent about it then you can't really complain about it.

This reminded me of this speech. After sexism was uncovered in the australian army a general made this speech. One of the most important bits is where he says the standards you walk by are the standards you accept.

As individuals we have to adopt a zero tolerance approach to that sort of behaviour. If someone calls women sluts we should say in no uncertain terms that the language they're using is unacceptable and that they are being disgusting. The same goes for any form of sexism or racism.

Grayson

tretorn wrote: »

What most sane people have taken from the trial is the incredibly short time the not guilty on all accounts verdict came through.
The rugby authorities should re instate those men immediately. They have worked hard for their team and loyalty has to count for something, its time now to man up to the lesbian feminist mob, the point is most normal women dont like them either and are tired of listening to them banging on.
People look at the men who have been acquitted and say enough already. They see how young they are and you cant put old heads on young shoulders. The whatsapp texts are a sideshow, private messages sent between a group of lads in their twenties and would be fairly typical of that age group.
You might get a few harpies parading outside but their purple hair, tattoos, nose rings and obesity put most people off them. They wont pay any money to get inside the grounds so wont interfere with the game. If anyone shouts rapist inside the grounds they can be removed and arrested, you cant shout rapist at innocent people and get away with it.

Don't know what kind of scum you hung out with in your twenties but i knew no-one who used that kind of language.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

This reminded me of this speech. After sexism was uncovered in the australian army a general made this speech. One of the most important bits is where he says the standards you walk by are the standards you accept.

As individuals we have to adopt a zero tolerance approach to that sort of behaviour. If someone calls women sluts we should say in no uncertain terms that the language they're using is unacceptable and that they are being disgusting. The same goes for any form of sexism or racism.

The problem here is that there is a cabal of soapboxers trying to start the revolution by hanging individuals first. Only because they have a high profile.

We all want to live in a more respectful world but how much have these soapboxers actually done to achieve that? Other than debase the debate by generalising and hysterical finger pointing.

NAGDEFI

RuMan wrote: »

Probably? Hmm sound like ur trying and failing to convince urself there

I don't think so. Maybe you'd like to be in Olding's position kissing the complainant after she performed oral sex on 'Jacko'. Not me.

LLMMLL

Fann Linn wrote: »

Yep. Looking more and more likely that the PSNI didn't have any problems here.

Think you misunderstood my post. I'm saying I think it's unlikely that someone leaving because she thought things were heading In a sexual direction would not only be a passive participant in a threesome but the main instigator.

Tell me how

Grayson wrote: »

As individuals we have to adopt a zero tolerance approach to that sort of behaviour. If someone calls women sluts we should say in no uncertain terms that the language they're using is unacceptable and that they are being disgusting. The same goes for any form of sexism or racism.

I'm not sure what to think about this.

For example, some people don't like the fact that the lads refer to "sluts" in their texts but they then refer to the lads as "a**holes". Is that not demeaning in the same manner?

There is such a thing as sluttish behaviour, d*ckish behaviour. It is subjective as to what constitutes this but are we not allowed to have private conversations where we refer to it as such?

I'm not suggesting it is something everyone does or that these guys view or are entitled to view all women in this manner but there was context to their messages (whether you agree with it or not) and it was a private conversation.

How many people talk to their partner in the evening about someone they work with or were on the bus with and use a term which is less than diplomatic? Should they be castigated for those conversations?

padser

Grayson wrote: »

As individuals we have to adopt a zero tolerance approach to that sort of behaviour. If someone calls women sluts we should say in no uncertain terms that the language they're using is unacceptable and that they are being disgusting. .

I'm actually OK living in a society where people are allowed to have private conversations amongst themselves.

If that's a WhatsApp group where a girl gets called a slut, or a conversation where a guy gets called a pig - that's OK.

Are we really at a point where private conversations that say something disparaging about another person are grounds to end someone's careers?

LLMMLL

padser wrote: »

I'm actually OK living in a society where people are allowed to have private conversations amongst themselves.

If that's a WhatsApp group where a girl gets called a slut, or a conversation where a guy gets called a pig - that's OK.

Are we really at a point where private conversations that say something disparaging about another person are grounds to end someone's careers?

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. If anyone's personal texts got out theyd annoy someone. Someone they made a comment about, people at work if they were venting about work. None of those people would be less annoyed if the author of the texts moaned "it was supposed to be private". If you put something in writing there's a chance it'll come back to bite you, and that supplies to us all.

Bambi985

Paddy Jackson apology

https://twitter.com/DavidYoungPA/status/982229460442202112

Vela

i've been thinking this over for a long time and struggled to come to a conclusion.

But right now, this is what I've come to believe:

-The girl went back to a party
-She was interested in sleeping with ONE guy
-The other guys decided to try their luck by interrupting to see if they could join in
-They did join in, but I don't believe she was okay with this. I believe she was intimidated, worried for her safety, and pressurized. However, whether this qualifies as rape is a very grey area.
-I believe she felt horrible and used because something happened that she didn't want to happen. I don't believe this happened by force, more by intimidation. It's very easy to freeze in those situations. Hence why it's so hard to decide whether is qualifies as rape. How do we know the men realised she didn't want it to happen?
-I don't think the men involved understood that what they were doing had the potential to be classified as an assault
-The men involved definitely took advantage and the way they talked about her was complete scum
-I believe the woman in question was also unsure whether this qualified as actual rape, hence the reluctance to report it
-Nonetheless, it was an awful experience for her to endure, which is clear by the process she has chosen to put herself through in court.
- I think the men involved have despicable attitudes towards women. I'm am extremely unsure by their motives and believe this is a "one thing led to another situation". I do not believe they would repeat it.
- However, that experience has ruined a woman's life.

So, are they guilty of rape? I'm unsure. But are they guilty of putting a woman into an intimidating position that has deeply affected her and will do for life, and then trying to cover that up later? Yes. So, if she gets a life sentence. Why do they get away scot free?

Sure, their names will be tarnished. But her life is also, forever.

It's been a hard case to follow and I'm sure we will see many more. I don't see myself shouting the #Ibelieveher hashtag from the rooftops, but I don't believe that any of those men are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. And that signifies something that is very very wrong with our culture here in Ireland. I don't believe we live in a rape culture. I'm not a 3rd wave feminist - they drive me nuts - but this whole case was a mess and it is clear that something needs to be fixed in how some men in this country think of women.