tretorn wrote: » I think most of the differences in the mens accounts was to do with protecting each other, ie not remembering who was in the room meant you didnt say anything that might prejudice your friend. The men were very drunk too so probably not really clear about what went on, they werent making claims though that could land someone else in jail for fifteen years. Jackson also wasnt handed Olding and McIlroys accounts before he gave his version, the woman was given copies of the mens statements and forewarned is forearmed. If Jackson had been given a copy of Mc Ilroys statement it would have helped him a lot.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Does rape destroy all victims? Destroy is such an emotive word. No, I don't think that would necessarily be the case in all the dubious consent instances. Yes, I have no doubt it does in violent and some consent ones. What do you make about the point that current classification is leading to less convictions?
Deleted User wrote: » I'm not going to reply to your entire post because I don't have time or that much interest. I will however deal with this one specific aspect. You have vastly over simplified consent in this aspect of your post. Let's go back to what I wrote earlier about me being with a woman and neither of us asking for consent. Let's say after some kissing she forces my hands back behind my head in a gesture of control and dominance. I freeze. My boxers are still on, but I didn't think we were going to have sex. I'm panicking internally but the panic is preventing me from saying anything. She lowers herself onto me and we are having intercourse. Technically, I'm being raped. It's hard to imagine that scene playing out, until it's me on top and her freezing. Now it's much more believable. Regardless, this could happen by accident. She could believe there was implied consent where I had not given it. Should she be labelled a rapist and sent to prison for 15 years? I would consider that totally unreasonable. So you need a different classification to accommodate instances where it's not unreasonable to believe there was implied consent even in circumstances where there was not.
facehugger99 wrote: » " It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to try and discredit those who've reached a different conclusion to them
Silentcorner wrote: » I don't believe that that is the problem. The bar for which the jury must be beyond all reasonable doubt would still be the same. But at least we all recognise that we have a problem with our conviction rate, that is a start!
facehugger99 wrote: » Never met a femanazi myself.
facehugger99 wrote: » Sure, the echo chamber with the femanazis.
facehugger99 wrote: » Amazing that there are that many femanazis in society isn't it. I think if there's an echo chamber anywhere, the other lads seem to be the ones inside it.
facehugger99 wrote: » "Hysterical Folk" "ill informed mob""Femanazis" "Shower of Idiots"
Grayson wrote: » Now I know you'll say that the guys were found innocent. That's besides the point though.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So what is your solution for upping convictions? Media and mob outrage everytime a celeb case comes around or a proper non shouty discussion of all the issues, representing all views.
Silentcorner wrote: » Well, when you have two people, with the exact same narratives about what happened then I'll cross that bridge...but that doesn't happen too often now does it?
Silentcorner wrote: » Move it to a more inquisitorial system, headed by a judge, option for the defence whether to put it to a jury or to a panel of judges. Training provided to everyone involved in the process including an induction course for any jury used. I am not suggesting I am right by the way, I'm no expert...but it can't continue the way it is, I do know that!
Silentcorner wrote: » You think? Most of the differenceces? Protecting each other? Not remembering? Prejudice your friend? the Men were so drunk? You can see why people had difficulty with it right?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Does rape destroy all victims? Destroy is such an emotive word.
Deleted User wrote: » I've noticed something about your posts here on this thread (of which there are many). You don't take kindly to emotion or emotive words. The issues talked about in this thread concern human beings. And as a result, emotion is going to be part of that discussion - especially relating to this topic. Your posts appear to want to sanitise and compartmentalise feelings and emotions related to this topic- to take emotion completely out of the debate- whether it's related to the case itself, the statements after the case, the text messages or indeed, the concept of rape itself, as per your post above. I do wonder why that is.
tretorn wrote: » Thankfully the jury were able to deliberate without emotion too.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I've noticed something about your posts here on this thread (of which there are many). You don't take kindly to emotion or emotive words. The issues talked about in this thread concern human beings. And as a result, emotion is going to be part of that discussion - especially relating to this topic. Your posts appear to want to sanitise and compartmentalise feelings and emotions related to this topic- to take emotion completely out of the debate- whether it's related to the case itself, the statements after the case, the text messages or indeed, the concept of rape itself, as per your post above. I do wonder why that is.
Deleted User wrote: » That is, literally, exactly what a jury is meant to do. Bravo, maybe the most illustrave posts of the thread.
Deleted User wrote: » This thread is not about questioning the outcome of the trial- i.e. the not-guilty verdict. So why are you celebrating the fact that expressions of emotion, concern, disgust, distaste etc directed at other issues not related to the trial verdict itself (which of course is built on objectivity) - are to be frowned upon here? We're not here on this thread to question the jury verdict. The judge said to that jury that emotion shouldn't come into their decision making. That's fine- that's a court of law. But we're not in a jury situation now- and we're not discussing the jury verdict as being right or wrong. Now is the time for emotion and subjectivity.
FrancieBrady wrote: » So I can't get emotional about blanket emotional phrases?
Deleted User wrote: » Well I think you've put your own finger on it there;) You're getting totally worked up (call it emotional:p) about other peoples emotional comments It's eh. Emotional to watch
FrancieBrady wrote: » Passing comment on usage is not getting worked up. Calm the ham.
professore wrote: » Get over yourself. Lots of people including myself have experienced harassment worse than what you have experienced. The difference is we don't use it to hate a group of people for the rest of our lives. That's just sexism. It's the exact same mindset Adolf Hitler had when some Jews didn't like his art. And we all know how that turned out.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I cannot see how that is going to raise the conviction rates. The judge was very careful here in this case to 'induct' the jury in summing up and opening remarks. And the prosecution did too.
tretorn wrote: » No, I cant see why anyone would have a difficulty with it, these werent hardened criminals, they had never been in trouble before. The woman answered any discrepancies in her evidence by saying she was frozen in fear. Maybe the men were frozen in fear in the Police Station, whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Stuart Olding had had twenty two drinks so it wouldnt be surprising if he couldnt remember his name. He did say he had consensual oral sex and a charge of vaginal rape was placed at his door because the woman said he had raped her, this charge was dropped before the jury even had a chance to give their verdict on it, this might have been another reason the jury came so quickly to the decision they did, they may have had a huge difficulty with someone being charged with vaginal rape when no semen was found inside the woman. The jury would have been fully aware of the history with this extremely serious allegation, after child molestation its the worst thing you can accuse someone of. Its very hard to understand how all the solicitors and Counsel that the PPS had at their disposal continued with this charge against Olding, it wasnt dropped until a month before the trial started. This is one issue the public need full facts on at the earliest opportunity.
Silentcorner wrote: » Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree. Like I said, I am no expert, I just think we should be locking up more rapists, that's all! And the process should be made more comfortable for the alleged victims. I don't see what benefit parading womens underwear around a public courtroom has for the defendants other than to further humiliate the victim. In this case, her deeply personal examination was recorded, which almost resulted in the video being shown in public court...I mean, I don't know if that could happen here in the Republic, if it can I would be repulsed by it...
tritium wrote: » Except thats not the point I made is it?
Silentcorner wrote: » I don't see what benefit parading womens underwear around a public courtroom has for the defendants other than to further humiliate the victim.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
