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

Appledreams15 · 09-04-2018 06:59AM

tretorn wrote: »

In a statement, Marianne O'Kane, assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, said: "The evidence received in this case was subjected to a very thorough and careful examination by a team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel, before we concluded that the test for prosecution was met, in line with our code for prosecutors.

It took eleven jurors less than four hours so thats less than an hour per man charged to say not guilty, imagine that.

It took the PPS twelve months to decide whether to charge the men or not and it took the jury less than four hours to go through the non existent evidence.

God only knows what the "team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel cost", I really hope they have been assigned to tea making duties. Someone somewhere needs to be held to account for this but you may be sure no one will take responsibility.

It would be great if one of the Jury spilled the beans, they would have been there and seen all the body language and that uusually tells you what you need to know.

Some of the jury should be recruited to the PPS office, it sounds like that office needs a dose of common sense.

But he was found not guilty after he and the other defendants employed the top barristers in the UK to defend themselves. They made that decision for themselves, they weren't forced to, and their lawyers did what they were being paid to do. They are responsible for the outcomes of their decisions, and again I don't see anything unfair about that.

At least Paddy jackson paid for his own legal defence not the woman who accused him, her costs are laid at the taxpayers door. She had the resources of the state thats you and me and everyone else on her side and the acquitted men had to dig deep so they had some chance against the State.

Imagine if she had laid those accusations against someone who didnt have the means to pay for good defence, that person would be locked up now without a shadow of a doubt.

If you dont see anything unfair about that then all I wish for you is that you find yourself in a similar situation to Paddy Jackson sometime soon, it might help you to gain some perspective. Do onto others......................

N.Ireland and Ireland has a very low rape conviction rate. Do you really think it is skewed in favour of the men, really?

As I say, one day ireland will look back on the atrocities it has committed on women with shame.

As out Taoiseach was quoted, "Ireland is a country where men have told women what to do for too long".

Get more women into government, as they will start caring about women in the country, put more money into rape support services etc.

When you have a nearly all male government, how do you expect women to be taken care of in this country?

Heads in the sand. It has got to change.

RabbleRouser2k · 09-04-2018 07:43AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

N.Ireland and Ireland has a very low rape conviction rate. Do you really think it is skewed in favour of the men, really?

As I say, one day ireland will look back on the atrocities it has committed on women with shame.

As out Taoiseach was quoted, "Ireland is a country where men have told women what to do for too long".

Get more women into government, as they will start caring about women in the country, put more money into rape support services etc.

When you have a nearly all male government, how do you expect women to be taken care of in this country?

Heads in the sand. It has got to change.

There's a petition to get Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding back on the Irish team-it's struggling, at the moment.

The petition to keep them off the team had more signatures within a few hours than this one has in a day.

Tell me how · 09-04-2018 07:50AM

Appledreams15 wrote:

Get more women into government, as they will start caring about women in the country, put more money into rape support services etc.

Women are as entitled to run for election as men. 50% of the electorate are women.

It's not men's fault the gender allocation is imbalanced.

salmocab · 09-04-2018 07:51AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Get more women into government, as they will start caring about women in the country, put more money into rape support services etc.

When you have a nearly all male government, how do you expect women to be taken care of in this country?

Heads in the sand. It has got to change.

Look the best people for the jobs should always get them but very few women that were or are in Irish politics have covered themselves in glory (just like the men).

RuMan · 09-04-2018 07:54AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Not your mate. Let's be clear. It was a test match, hardly major competition. And June was also the date of his being charged. So you see how I missed that. (You're not trying to get Olding back, are you-not as valuable I see. Possibly because of his many injuries. So what is the investment in Jackson?).

That's just a ridiculous statement (this from someone who didn't even sign the petition). You cannot ban someone for having an opinion you disagree with. It's only gonna lead to another trip to court-and further anger.
(This kind of logic would have people from Roscommon banned from Rugby games because that county voted no to same sex marriage.)

There were others who signed a petition wanting Rory Best to be removed as captain. To me that was ridiculous, but not a reason to ban them from the stadiums.
Jackson's not even on the team-if he is never allowed play for Ireland again, are you going to boycott Irish rugby? Of course not.

Yeah, after he was convicted of rape. Before he had it overturned two years later. (I checked the dates on the petition).
And plenty of people apologised to him, including the 'harpies' such as Loose Women. Many to avoid being sued.

Come on people-be sensible.

Look mate you said " he hadnt played a game comptetively in 24 months"

A statement that was completely and utterly false. You had ur ass handed to u, stop embarrassing urself further. Bye bye

tritium · 09-04-2018 08:01AM

jm08 wrote: »

tritium wrote: »

Your statistics except by the most misleading reading, in no way show what you claim they do

They had irrefutable proof that rape had taken place (an example of a case like this would be someone beating up the victim so there is physical evidence that they were raped).

The stats are what they are. 17% of reported rapes result in convictions. If you takeout the uncontested cases, its about 11%.

Nope it doesn’t. 17% is made up of 35/205

If you include those who plead guilty you get (35+73)/278 or about 39%

It’s a valid arguement that those that are taken into account should also be included, while Nolle prosecui should be excluded (in these the state effectively concedes it can’t win, often at the start of the process). In that case the number becomes (183+35+73)/(183+278) or 63%

The figures you gave have been spliced to give a particular skewed view. No idea where you get the 11% from....

On the first point, is that your interpretation of the numbers of guilty pleas or is it in the report?

jm08 · 09-04-2018 08:07AM

upandcumming wrote: »

You had hammerheads sign petitions from all around the world to stop Ched Evans from playing again. What percentage of the signatories even knew who he was? Half of them couldn't even point the UK out on a map, nevermind know anything about the case. How many of them know now that he was since found not guilty? Where is the petition to apologise to this innocent man, who has had the best years of his life snatched away?

Ched Evans is a bad example to use. While he may have had the guilty verdict removed, the way he and his friends treated that woman was disgraceful.

DavidLyons_ · 09-04-2018 08:12AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Get more women into government, as they will start caring about women in the country, put more money into rape support services etc.

When you have a nearly all male government, how do you expect women to be taken care of in this country?

Heads in the sand. It has got to change.

My God. You are a very bitter and twisted individual with very ugly views that, thankfully, are held by a minority of seemingly damaged and dangerous people.

Fortunately, women have a vote here too. If a female candidate is more deserving of those votes, I'm sure they'll get them - from both their male and female peers.

jm08 · 09-04-2018 08:18AM

tritium wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

tritium wrote: »

Your statistics except by the most misleading reading, in no way show what you claim they do

Nope it doesn’t. 17% is made up of 35/205

If you include those who plead guilty you get (35+73)/278 or about 39%

It’s a valid arguement that those that are taken into account should also be included, while Nolle prosecui should be excluded (in these the state effectively concedes it can’t win, often at the start of the process). In that case the number becomes (183+35+73)/(183+278) or 63%

The figures you gave have been spliced to give a particular skewed view. No idea where you get the 11% from....

On the first point, is that your interpretation of the numbers of guilty pleas or is it in the report?

Read the article here.

They give this figure:

The rate of convictions in 2013 for all of those charged with rape was just 19%, but the rate for those who actually contested the charges was less than 7%.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html

The 11% came from one of those international/EU surveys which I haven't got time to find now.

RuMan · 09-04-2018 08:35AM

Tell me how wrote: »

A - It was 2016.
B - The last part shows you're not here to discuss but just to have your say.
C - What are you, Australian?

Look mate ur embarrassing urself now and probably late 4 school

https://m.independent.ie/sport/rugby/international-rugby/joe-schmidts-men-turn-on-the-style-in-tokyo-as-it-happened-35835102.html

June 2017 thank you

tritium · 09-04-2018 08:36AM

jm08 wrote: »

tritium wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

Read the article here.

They give this figure:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/ourview/rape-conviction-rate-offers-no-protection-276761.html

The 11% came from one of those international/EU surveys which I haven't got time to find now.

Mother of Jesus you need to do some serious mathematical acrobatics to get the percentages you gave there based on the numbers you quoted. That’s just ridiculous and dishonest to present as fact based on those numbers.

You do get that the 17% figure you have earlier is fairly contrived right? You do get why you can’t exvlude a whole pile of relevant cases to get the number down?

tretorn · 09-04-2018 08:43AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't know how you're still not getting this, unless you really don't want to, but the PPS decided that they had met the evidentiary requirements, and that it was in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. It takes time for cases to be investigated, and time for the cases to come before the Courts.

I've also already explained to you why members of the jury are unlikely ever to spill the beans, as they could find themselves charged with contempt of court.

What part of the alleged victim appearing as a witness for the State are you not understanding? The State were not representing the alleged victim in the States case against the defendants. The alleged victim absolutely did not have the resources of the State on her side any more than you or I would not have the resources of the State on our side if we were to appear as witnesses for the State. We wouldn't need to apply to the Courts for legal aid for legal representation, as we would not be the persons on trial.

The acquitted men dug deep because they were entitled to legal representation, and they clearly wanted the best legal representation they could afford to defend themselves against the charges made against them. That is entirely their right.

If you're asking me to imagine something, then you surely have to accept that there is an inherent doubt as to whether it could.actually ever be a reality. Again - it would depend entirely upon the circumstances of each and every case, as opposed to your own admission from earlier that you will be looking at every case from now on and wondering is this another fanciful tale, without having even heard any evidence!

I'm a firm believer in do unto others tretorn, but I'm resisting laughing at your use of the maxim in defence of these men's behaviour when not one of them would welcome upon themselves what they chose to put this girl through. It might help you gain some perspective if you were to put yourself in the position the girl in this case was in. The experience certainly gave the men involved some perspective on their behaviour, and that's exactly why they made public apologies for their behaviour. Even the men involved in this case finally came to understand that their behaviour and their attitudes were unacceptable, and frankly what they paid their defence team was the reason I suggested they got fantastic value for money.

You've tried every which way to have people imagine themselves, and their sons in the same situation as the defendants and you've failed miserably time and time again. Perhaps you should be questioning why that is as opposed to looking to lay the responsibility and the blame for their behaviour, and the circumstances in which they now find themselves, on everyone else but the men themselves.

I dont know why you are not getting this but the PPS did not have enough evidence to bring this case to Court, the Police if truth is to come out now told them the case wouldnt stand up, the police and the PPS have enough experience between them to be able to understand this and as they admitted themselves they had enough lawyers and Queens counsel to help them.

It was perfectly clear to most observers that once Dara Florence testified that she saw a happy three some going on that the ship was sunk, them man who was supposed to be engaged in raping someone asked her to join in, what man would ask a woman to join in a rape, surely even you can accept this is bizarre, how does this bit of evidence not enough to suggest that a tale in being spun. If that wasnt enough it wasnt one tale that was being spun, it was two or three and every time someone mentioned a discrepancy a different version was put together. The Police even helped this woman in her tales of fancy by handing her the mens statements, Jackson should definitely take legal advice on the PSNI role in this sad tale. The Police Officer admitted in Court it is not usual for people making allegations to be handed the accused persons statements.

Paddy Jackson unfortuneately needed the best defence available, every man does because its the policy of the PPS to assume a man is guilty and quite clearly now the general public including deluded people like you think a man is guilty too.

The person who is most responsible for what happened is the woman herself, she shouldnt have drunk so much, shouldnt have left her friends, shouldnt have gone into a VIP section fishing for men, shouldnt have gone to a strangers house and most definitely shouldnt have left a mixed party to go to a bedroom with someone who didnt know her name.

If she has learnt anything from this experience let it be a lesson in personal responsibility and if she hasnt learn that then she may find herself in this situation again and another mans life will be destroyed.

Coming to your senses after group sex is not rape, this is another reason this case had to be thrown out, if it set a precedent then every woman who goes looking for men with celebrety to sleep with them and then for whatever reason afterwards claims rape will hhave to have their day in court. I was of the opinion the police and the PPS could filter made up claims from genuine rape victims but as I said after this ridiculous case its clear taking cases is more about improving conviction numbers and satisfying the increasingly influential femimist mob.

The gender make up of the PSNI and the PPS was very female, it might be time now to make sure more male personnel are involved, this might give innocent men a better chance of a fair deal from the start. These men had a fair trial so were acquitted because thank god eleven very sensible men and women with no prior bias could see through the whole non event and make sure justice was done.

jm08 · 09-04-2018 08:54AM

tritium wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

tritium wrote: »

Mother of Jesus you need to do some serious mathematical acrobatics to get the percentages you gave there based on the numbers you quoted. That’s just ridiculous and dishonest to present as fact based on those numbers.

You do get that the 17% figure you have earlier is fairly contrived right? You do get why you can’t exvlude a whole pile of relevant cases to get the number down?

At least the author of the article in the examiner actually explains the 'mathematical acrobats' that they used.

jm08 · 09-04-2018 09:10AM

tretorn wrote: »

I dont know why you are not getting this but the PPS did not have enough evidence to bring this case to Court, the Police if truth is to come out now told them the case wouldnt stand up, the police and the PPS have enough experience between them to be able to understand this and as they admitted themselves they had enough lawyers and Queens counsel to help them.

So far, the police and the prosecution services said they had enough evidence to go ahead with a prosecution. Until there is unrefutable evidence this is not so, can you please stop claiming this.

It was perfectly clear to most observers that once Dara Florence testified that she saw a happy three some going on that the ship was sunk, them man who was supposed to be engaged in raping someone asked her to join in, what man would ask a woman to join in a rape, surely even you can accept this is bizarre, how does this bit of evidence not enough to suggest that a tale in being spun.

Dara also thought she saw penetrative sex happening which PJ denied.
Most importantly, the lads thought they were having consensual sex - no one is disputing that.

If that wasnt enough it wasnt one tale that was beeing spun, it was two or thrree and everytime someone mentioned a discrepancy a different version was put together. The Police even helped this woman in her tales of fancy by handing her the mens statements, Jackson should definitely take legal advice on the PSNI role in this sad tale. The Police Officer admitted in Court it is not usual for people making allegations to be handed the accused persons statements.

McIlroy and Olding got their stories mixed up. There were also deleted text messages that were never retrieved. It will be interesting to know why that was done.

The person who is most responsible for what happened is the woman herself, she shouldnt have drunk so much, shouldnt have left her friends, shouldnt have gone into a VIP section fishing for men, shouldnt have gone to a strangers house and most definitely shouldnt have left a mixed party to go to a bedroom with someone who didnt know hername.

If she has learnt anything from this experience let it be a lesson in personal responsibility and if she hasnt learn that then she may find herself in this situation again and another mans life will be destroyed.

Thats right, men are just lead up the garden path by irresponsible women.:D

tritium · 09-04-2018 09:18AM

jm08 wrote: »

At least the author of the article in the examiner actually explains the 'mathematical acrobats' that they used.

If anything it’s worse that they know what theyre doing and still present it as a fair view. The most telling line in a he piece for me was

tatistics can be massaged in different ways, but no matter how the figures are presented in relation to rape cases, the rate of conviction appears pathetic.

The author ably demonstrat s how well they can be massaged. As I showed earlier a far more justifiable figure in excess of 60% can be obtained just by not randomly and inexcusably splicing our relevant data points

BBDBB · 09-04-2018 09:26AM

2 years of 4 young mens lives put on hold.
Career ambitions, educational achievement, employment opportunities all stymied
Press camped outside your house, photos and facts about your life regurgitated again and again to fill out news articles with limited new information
Friends and neighbours gossiping about you every time you or your family show your face outside the door
Months of preparation for a trial, stress and anxiety for you and your family
9 weeks of a trial where your future is at stake, photographed every day going into court
scrutiny over what you wear, what you look like, what you are poured over in the press
social media pre judging you by the court reports in the press as the story unfolds, with no pretence about due process, right to reply or any semblance of a fair go of it

It takes a jury less than 4 hours, thats between right now and lunchtime to return a not guilty verdict. After months of pressure and stress on you and your family, it takes less than an hour per accusation, less than an hour per accused person for those who heard the evidence to determine you aren't guilty.
You still face an internal investigation by the two interested bodies who control your career path, both potential employers, although with two years out of the game you aren't at your peak form anyway.

Every word out your mouth is analysed as to whether its satisfactory to the mob
Social media decides that the verdict isn't right and instead of facing a trial in the legal system of the land you face a trial by social media who have already decided you are guilty. They haven't heard all the evidence, but are sure you are guilty and so your punishment will be determined by a petition because clearly thats the only way justice will be served?

Theres a line where justice becomes spiteful blind vengeance, I think we are there now, time to back away and let all four start to rebuild their lives as best they can

Beechwoodspark · 09-04-2018 09:27AM

There’s going to be an appeal from the media today to allow further reporting on aspects of the trial to take place.

upandcumming · 09-04-2018 09:56AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

That's just a ridiculous statement (this from someone who didn't even sign the petition). You cannot ban someone for having an opinion you disagree with. It's only gonna lead to another trip to court-and further anger.
(This kind of logic would have people from Roscommon banned from Rugby games because that county voted no to same sex marriage.)

There were others who signed a petition wanting Rory Best to be removed as captain. To me that was ridiculous, but not a reason to ban them from the stadiums.
Jackson's not even on the team-if he is never allowed play for Ireland again, are you going to boycott Irish rugby? Of course not.

That was a tongue in cheek comment rather than being serious. I really don't think anyone should be banned from the games for their beliefs.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, after he was convicted of rape. Before he had it overturned two years later. (I checked the dates on the petition).
And plenty of people apologised to him, including the 'harpies' such as Loose Women. Many to avoid being sued.

Come on people-be sensible.

The reason I brought Ched Evans into this, relates to the farcical 'petition'. My point is that thousands of people from all around the world signed a petition to prevent him from signing for Sheffield, and Oldham when they simply knew nothing of the case or the clubs involved. Anyone can signed a change.org petition, it is completely meaningless.

Mrsmum · 09-04-2018 11:18AM

[QUOTE=tretorn;106667822]So, first of all you see nothing unfair about Paddy Jackson having to spend thousands of pounds of his earnings defending himself against allegations that have proved to be unfounded, what sort of a planet do you live on.

How would you feelif someone invited themselves into your house and into your bedroom for consensual sex and then went home and made an allegation of rape against you. You wait for a year for the PSNI and the PPS to come to a decision whether you are to becharged and all this time you are suspended from your career, we dont even know whether Jackson and Olding were paid while suspended. If people dont ask how in the name of God this mess was created for citizens of this country then it could happen to each and every one of us.

There is an inquiry being undertaken at the moment into the taking of this case, the details of this were already linked further up in the thread, the bare minimum of information on this inquiry will be in the media because everyone is to think Jackson and Olding are evil people, instead we will get reams and reams of utter tripe by female journalists talking ****e about consent classes and how to make men more like women and how to knock little boys into submission by filling their heads with feminist clap trap in junior infants.

The PSNI did not recommend that this case go to trial, they knew the evidence wasnt there, they had an independent witness who backed up what the men said, it was a consensual threesome. The PPS, yes, you are right, the PPS and not the CPS pursued this case in spite of being advised by the police that the evidence was not convincing, the PSNI staff and the PPS staff seem to all female so maybe they were biased towards the victim or maybe they have a problem with Ulster rugby, there could be a million reasons why the case was taken and its not enough to say there was a good chance of conviction, there wasnt after Dara Florence gave her evidence.

Are police and PPS files subject to freedom of information requests, would it be possible for someone to look at the files to see to how the decision to prosecute was made. Do the PPS often to against police advice.

It was outrageous too for the PSNI(woman) and the PPS(woman) to make any statement about the woman in this case. Jackson and Olding were barely out of the dock when we were told how brave the woman had been making her claim, the jury threw out her entire claim in less than four hours, this was after nine weeks of a very complex court case. What did you think those women were going to say when they had egg all over their faces, oh, sorry guys, we got that one wrong!!!!!!!!!

Thats enough evidence for me, the case should never have been brought and if it was my family I would be seeking return of my legal expenses and I would go to the Court of European Justice if I had to. Jackson and Oldings lives have been ruined and this isnt enough for you.

We should be all equal before the law regardless of our gender, women cannot make progress in having their rights respected by trampling all over mens rights, this is a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]

Let's come at it from another angle to help you understand. I am a major gangland boss and one day I get arrested for my crimes and a court case ensues. I get the best defence lawyers in the world and because the evidence doesn't stand up, reasonable doubt and all that, I am found not guilty. Do you want the state to pay my costs ? If you feel ah but in that example you were guilty, remind yourself I was judged 'not guilty' by the jury. Should I rant and rave that the case shouldn't have got before the court as evidenced by the non guilty verdict ? Or is it that you want to be judge and jury yourself deciding PJ is really not guilty so his defence lawyer should be paid for but in my example I am also not guilty and I should pay. Wouldn't that put you in the same camp as those you are giving out about who can't accept the law.

"We should be all equal before the law regardless of our gender, women cannot make progress in having their rights respected" - is that an admission that you don't think currently women have equal rights ?

goz83 · 09-04-2018 11:19AM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

N.Ireland and Ireland has a very low rape conviction rate. Do you really think it is skewed in favour of the men, really?

As I say, one day ireland will look back on the atrocities it has committed on women with shame.

As out Taoiseach was quoted, "Ireland is a country where men have told women what to do for too long".

Get more women into government, as they will start caring about women in the country, put more money into rape support services etc.

When you have a nearly all male government, how do you expect women to be taken care of in this country?

Heads in the sand. It has got to change.

There is a low conviction rate because cases brought to court are weak. That could be due to bleeding heart syndrome for the alleged victim, or just a badly constructed method of judging the viability of a case before a recommendation is sent forward. If the weaker cases were cut, the conviction rates would see a big increase based on the same number of complaints.

Our Taoiseach says a lot if things which are later oroven to be rubbish, so I wouldn’t put his words so high on a pedestal. I recall him saying that if Fine Gael got into power, “not another red cent” would be paid to the bond holders. How did that work out?

There are a higher number of women in Government and other highly regarded public roles with great responsibility, but I don’t see marked improvements. Our minister for children is a gay woman with no children afaik and makes hugely important decisions for parents and children with no real life experience as a parent. Women are just as corrupt and deceitful as men can be with power. Minister for justice....Garda commissioner.....South Korean ex President, Hilary....need I go on?

Finally, we are edging toward legilative gender quotas. I think this is a terrible idea and would devalue and undermine women immensely. As has been pointed out, women are half the electorate. Nobody is stopping women from running for politics. If a gender quota is in place, the women who are voted in will forever be labelled. They will be viewed as unworthy and will only be there because they are part of a quota, rather than beating the person who should have got the job. I also believe it is assault on democracy to introduce gender quotas. What next? Quotas based on ethnicity, background, sexual preference?

Dangerous road.

jm08 · 09-04-2018 11:23AM

upandcumming wrote: »

The reason I brought Ched Evans into this, relates to the farcical 'petition'. My point is that thousands of people from all around the world signed a petition to prevent him from signing for Sheffield, and Oldham when they simply knew nothing of the case or the clubs involved. Anyone can signed a change.org petition, it is completely meaningless.

I think you should read up about what actually happened. If anyone knows nothing about it, its you.

Evans’ defence was: “Drunken consent is nevertheless consent. While disinhibited through drink, she did consent to sex. Lack of memory does not equal lack of consent.”

She didn't remember having sex with him in the first place.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ched-evans-footballer-rape-trial-acquitted-justice-woman-misogyny-consent-prison-walk-free-a7362276.html

goz83 · 09-04-2018 11:23AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

[/B]
Let's come at it from another angle to help you understand. I am a major gangland boss and one day I get arrested for my crimes and a court case ensues. I get the best defence lawyers in the world and because the evidence doesn't stand up, reasonable doubt and all that, I am found not guilty. Do you want the state to pay my costs ? If you feel ah but in that example you were guilty, remind yourself I was judged 'not guilty' by the jury. Should I rant and rave that the case shouldn't have got before the court as evidenced by the non guilty verdict ? Or is it that you want to be judge and jury yourself deciding PJ is really not guilty so his defence lawyer should be paid for but in my example I am also not guilty and I should pay. Wouldn't that put you in the same camp as those you are giving out about who can't accept the law.

"We should be all equal before the law regardless of our gender, women cannot make progress in having their rights respected" - is that an admission that you don't think currently women have equal rights ?

Your analogy is flawed. In the analogy, you admit to being a major crime boss and so guilt is not even a question, it’s a fact. Maybe if you edit the anology to suggest that you are arrested and accused of being a major crime boss and see how that pans out?

Also there are unequal rights on both sides of the fence. Fathers rights for example are almost non existent.

Mrsmum · 09-04-2018 11:26AM

goz83 wrote: »

Your analogy is flawed. In the analogy, you admit to being a major crime boss and so guilt is not even a question, it’s a fact. Maybe if you edit the anology to suggest that are arrested and accused of being a major crime boss and see how that pans out?

Fair enough but the point is still that I hire the best and I pay for the best. Anyway in the example I might admit to being a crime boss but I actually mightn't have done that particular crime.

upandcumming · 09-04-2018 11:40AM

jm08 wrote: »

I think you should read up about what actually happened. If anyone knows nothing about it, its you.

Evans’ defence was: “Drunken consent is nevertheless consent. While disinhibited through drink, she did consent to sex. Lack of memory does not equal lack of consent.”

She didn't remember having sex with him in the first place.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ched-evans-footballer-rape-trial-acquitted-justice-woman-misogyny-consent-prison-walk-free-a7362276.html

I know quite a bit about the Evan's case.
However, knowledge of the Ched Evans case is not required in this thread or the conversation around this case. No one is talking about the ins and outs of his case.
I am talking about the online petition that came years after he was convicted, to prevent him from playing with some clubs in the UK. My point is that thousands of people signing and pushing the petition on social media knew nothing of the case, didn't know what he was doing to have a re-trial and didn't know anything about the clubs involved.

jm08 · 09-04-2018 11:53AM

upandcumming wrote: »

I know quite a bit about the Evan's case.
However, knowledge of the Ched Evans case is not required in this thread or the conversation around this case. No one is talking about the ins and outs of his case.
I am talking about the online petition that came years after he was convicted, to prevent him from playing with some clubs in the UK. My point is that thousands of people signing and pushing the petition on social media knew nothing of the case, didn't know what he was doing to have a re-trial and didn't know anything about the clubs involved.

People have every right to protest at having Evans at the club bearing in mind what he admitted to. He also had the nerve to say afterwards that women should be careful of getting drunk and how they behave because they might end up in the hands of a real rapist!

Grayson · 09-04-2018 11:57AM

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

My God. You are a very bitter and twisted individual with very ugly views that, thankfully, are held by a minority of seemingly damaged and dangerous people.

Fortunately, women have a vote here too. If a female candidate is more deserving of those votes, I'm sure they'll get them - from both their male and female peers.

Deranged and damaged? What's wrong with you? Ireland has some of the lowest participation for women in politics in the developed world.
We currently have one of the highest participation levels we've ever had and it's still pitifully low.

We're 78th in the world. Countries that have a higher participation include Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Wanting to see a parity is not deranged and people who'd like to see it are not damaged.
I'd suggest that people who have your kind of visceral reaction to a suggestion that we have more people in parliament have some kind of twisted ideology. There's something wrong with you if you think that someone who thinks that we should have better participation than Iraq or Afghanistan is deranged and damaged.

lifeandtimes · 09-04-2018 11:58AM

So this happened

https://twitter.com/AodhanORiordain/status/983282392113836032

Obviously his legal team told him to do it because trouble is probably ciming his way in the line of a libel suit.

The lawyers for jackson have said they are examing all social media regarding the case and plan to take high court proceedings againts any defamation

Lux23 · 09-04-2018 12:00PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

So this happened

https://twitter.com/AodhanORiordain/status/983282392113836032

Obviously his legal team told him to do it because trouble is probably ciming his way in the line of a libel suit.

The lawyers for jackson have said they are examing all social media regarding the case and plan to take high court proceedings againts any defamation

Eh, you saw Paddy Jackson's apology of last week? He has no chance of winning a libel case now.

Tell me how · 09-04-2018 12:02PM

lifeandtimes wrote: »

So this happened

https://twitter.com/AodhanORiordain/status/983282392113836032

Obviously his legal team told him to do it because trouble is probably ciming his way in the line of a libel suit.

The lawyers for jackson have said they are examing all social media regarding the case and plan to take high court proceedings againts any defamation

I'd say given Jackson's statement late last week and now this, Jackson's legal team have probably hinted that they wont proceed with suing him should he post a retraction/clarification as he has done.

It's not in their interest to pursue a claim in this way either.

tretorn · 09-04-2018 12:03PM

jm08 wrote: »

People have every right to protest at having Evans at the club bearing in mind what he admitted to. He also had the nerve to say afterwards that women should be careful of getting drunk and how they behave because they might end up in the hands of a real rapist!

That is really sensible advice and most women who heed it manage to get home safe after nights out. You can scream and throw all your toys out of the pram but that is the truth.

Most sensible parents say this to their daughters as they head out to nightclubs, dont drink, dont take drugs, stay with your friends. They dont say the bit about engaging in casual sex with strangers because sensible parents think this doesnt need to be said. Parents dont usually worry about sons going out half as much but after the Belfast case parents will be warning sons about one night stands and to learn from jacksons experience that you need to get consent in writing or risk a ten year prison sentence.

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

Comments