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

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:

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.

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.

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."

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!

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.