jm08 wrote: » Not just the time. The interrogation (and with no counsel). We don't know down here because reporting of cases is restricted.
tretorn wrote: » Being convicte of rape is absolutely life destroying so no charges should be brought until an evidential case is made, this case didnt reach that standard so clearly the proscecution service have a case to answer. Direct your anger about the length of time the woman had to give evidence against the PPS and not at the men who were cleared of any wrongdoing.
Deleted User wrote: » The length of the alleged victims testimony was a product of two things.Charging 4 victims at once Having made several inconsistent statements at the outset Having suffered a trauma it's entirely possible to mix things up, leave things out and have a fragmented memory. Everyone understands and accepts that. The defendants similarly had inconsistencies. However. Putting people in jail for 15 years requires those inconsistencies are examined and tested. There is no alternative to this. Being unclear or hazy about key evidence isn't acceptable when depriving people of freedom for a substantial period of their life. Again, without getting into guilt or innocence, due process is in everyone's best interest. The problem here is that people are calling this unfair and saying it will put people off reporting this kind of crime. It certainly might put people off but the unfairness is related to how this prosecution was put forward by those seeking justice, not by those representing the defendants. It's very misguided.
cloudatlas wrote: » what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.
facehugger99 wrote: » I've never posted anything as vile and dehumanizing as the language used in that WhatsApp group. If you're trying to suggest it's normal, you're wrong. If you think it's acceptable, then you really should recalibrate your morals because it's not.
jm08 wrote: » I think what is very unfair is that even though she was a witness, she was treated like a defendant. She should have had her own legal counsel. There are reforms that could be made to help the situation for everyone. One of the best things to come out of it is perhaps education around consent and possibly a change in the law such as what Iceland has done. That should make everyone clearing on what their responsibilities are.
facehugger99 wrote: » "Hysterical Folk" "ill informed mob" "Femanazis" "Shower of Idiots" That's only the last few pages. It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to try and discredit those who've reached a different conclusion to them regarding Jackson and his suitably to represent his country. Perhaps instead of labeling people in such a negative way, more reflection is called for. Dehumanizing language was a feature of the texts that came to light in this case, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that those who see nothing wrong with them use the same language in their posts.
cloudatlas wrote: » According to this thread this will have no impact and it was only a small group of feminazi's marching so you have nothing to worry about. Also what continues to be ignored is how victims are treated in court and the benefits a change would have for both male and female victims. Of course the trial brought up emotions for victims that can't be helped or curtailed.
tritium wrote: » Was dehumanizing language one sided so “MenRTrash” Women acting “slutty” Privileged little rich kids
FrancieBrady wrote: » Other than young men bragging about a night of drunken sex what was 'vile' about what they said?
Grayson wrote: » Weren't two of those after she was raped?
facehugger99 wrote: » Ask Paddy. He's unreservedly apologised for the language used.
tretorn wrote: » After who was raped.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Nobody has spent that amount of time in the stand. A complainant has to be interrogated, you cannot have a fair system any other way. Unless of course you just believe allegations when they are made, which is what the mob did here and no court case will persuade them otherwise. *p.s. We do know what goes on in trials, we just don't know specifics and names.
Grayson wrote: » weren't those two of the phrases that the woman who was raped used to describe the ruby players.
jm08 wrote: » Who are this 'mob' you keep referring to? I don't recall exactly, but wasn't most the time on PJ and Olding. As far as I can recall, the other 2s questioning was very brief anyway since most the questions were asked by Jackson's counsel. There are improvements to the process that can be made, such as giving witnesses in rape cases legal counsel. Jackson's Counsel in particular went for the jugular. If they can dish it out, they should be well able to take it.
tretorn wrote: » After who was raped. Jacksons lawyers are monitoring all social media and they will sue for libel, you have been warned.
2smiggy wrote: » Did you not see the verdict ?
Grayson wrote: » the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous. She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display. Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her. Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen. The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.
jm08 wrote: » *in rape cases, we only get to know about it if there is a conviction.
Grayson wrote: » the tag itself is but the trial process was ridiculous. She spent 8 days on the stand. Her underwear was put on display. Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though. It shouldn't be possible to put a rape victim through that. Any woman who saw that trial and was raped would be less likely to report it because they know they could questioned for 8 days in court and have all kinds of insinuations made about her. Now as a side note I'd say that the accused should have their names hidden until a guilty verdict is called. The trial in belfast was a media circus and that should not have been allowed to happen.The way rape trials are conducted needs to be overhauled.
Grayson wrote: » Yeah. So? That's not answering my question. Those two phrases are things she said after it happened.
Deleted User wrote: » Had she had her own legal counsel, her experience in court would not have changed one little bit. The judge decides what is and isn't acceptable questioning. She is also entitled at any time to retain a lawyer to provide advice. She wasn't treated like a defendant. If she misspoke or failed to recall something, it wouldn't result in her being sent to prison. She wasn't named publicly. The prosecution chose to take a case relying 95% on the statements of one witness, the complainant. They chose to take a case against 4 people at once. They chose to take a case despite the one sober, independent witness saying they didn't believe they saw a rape. If anyone is angry at anyone, it should be the people who chose to bring this case to court in the manner that they did. Instead we get 70,000 people demanding that Paddy Jackson never play rugby in Ireland again.
jm08 wrote: » Not too sure there wouldn't have been protests about how the court system works, such as open court in NI, adversorial system. People were very shocked at how it plays out as you don't see what happens in the system in the south. Most people also realise that sex education needs to be brought up to date in particular around the area of consent. Rape Crisis Centre and other advocacy groups has been at the forefront of advocating these, not the politicians.
2smiggy wrote: » after what happened ? Feel free to leave your real name/address with your comment if so comfortable saying it.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9b76d98e114f5400c7df3b751ca1250b.svg)
