Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

tretorn wrote: »

As for people who state they are fully sure their sons dont talk derogatorily about women, you can bet the parents of the teen boys in Cork who ticked female classes names also thought their sons were whiter than white too.

I'm sure they did think their kids wouldn't do that. But if their parents don't think that is acceptable where did kids get the idea that list like that is funny or whatever they thought it is. Shouldn't we show youngsters that kind of behaviour isn't acceptable?

OwlsZat

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

C) A misunderstanding - they genuinely believed she was consenting. She genuinely wasn’t and thought they knew but it wasn’t made clear
D) it was consensual but she regrets it

D is quite correct but I don't see C as being plausible.

tretorn

I wonder whose blood was airbrushed out.

It wasnt the woman who made the allegations blood. She cant have bled much because I dont think there was blood on her jeans, I might be wrong about that, I thought it was only on her underwear.

One of the defence counsel said he had no intention of saying whose blood it was, he didnt say it couldnt be ascertained who it belonged to.

AudreyHepburn

Maybe it’s just me but a part of me finds it a little demeaning the way women are being about lately as a result of this trial and I am not referring to the WhatsApp messages either.

When was it decided that we are fragile porcelain dolls who need protection from big bad men and their naughty words and evil desire? Since when are we so endangered that we need to send men to consent classes and police their private conversations to make sure they aren’t saying anything that might upset us?

It’s the 21st Century - surely we modern women are strong enough not be severely offended by men’s drunken antics and silly banter? Sure we engage in the exact same behaviors ourselves.

tretorn

If Jackson was told she had a problem after having sex with him wouldnt you think the first thing he would do would be to wash the feckin sheets. He didnt even do that, he had no idea anything was amiss when he met Harrison and the other lads for breakfast even though the proscecution said they met up to form a dastardly plan.

The video clip Harrison sent was probably sent before the woman texted to say what had happened was non consensual, these were odd words for a nineteen year old to use, in my opinion anyway, did someone put those words in her mouth.

There was no evidential value to be found in showing the sheets covered with blood, it wasnt the claimants blood and no information was given as to whose blood it was. The judge knew the lynch mob would lose their life at the thought of sheets dripping with blood, the problem with sheets dripping with blood means someone has been badly injured. The woman who alleged rape had a 1cm tear and no other marks whatsoever on her and its still not entirely clear whether her blood on the bed was period blood. The woman herself had texted her friends to say the stress of the gang rape had caused her period to come early, this wasnt true either because the men were acquitted of all charges so in fact she didnt endure any trauma at all.

meeeeh wrote: »

I never said how men should feel when called misogynus, I said the word by itself is not a slur. That has nothing to do with my interpretation, that is dictionary definition.

As per a like I posted earlier the meaning of the word has been (quite deliberately) changed in recent years. It is most definitely used as a slur

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm not dictating to anyone on how they should feel -- nor am I saying that everyone should be like me. I am merely imploring people not to take the private comments that people make as being indicative of their true serious views. Imagine we enforced a world like that? A Dystopia of linguistic stringency where our every word at the dinner table or the pub is audited, scrutinised and interpreted as being utterly and completely indicative of what we believe and how we think people should be treated.

Is that the world you want? If not, then ask yourself why not. Are we to live in a world where everyone is crucified at the altar of unobtainable moral perfection ?

I get you and I have no problem with them working in some anonymous job but they are celebrities. We don't know them, except by their statements and actions. And they don't look good, they maybe didn't mean anything bad personally but we are not dealing with their intimate personality, we only have the image they project publicly. They became a symbol of something. Not letting them play might unfair to them but letting them play might be hurtful to a whole bigger group of people. It would also create impression that verbally abusing women is ok.

FrancieBrady

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think we will all have to accept there was some blood on the sheets - how much I don’t know.

But that doesn’t make it rape.

There was blood. But the bed was not covered in her blood.
Those who pretend to accept the verdict will sensationalise the facts in order to undermine it if you let them away with it.

FrancieBrady

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Apologies. I will rephrase. With the extra information, I would be able to offer an informed opinion on whether or not I think the word slut is offensive. Of course the woman in that hypothetical situation has the right to take offense no matter my opinion. And I have the right to think she is being ridiculous.

Even more ridiculous if you are a non involved third party taking offence.
The snowflake factor.

Yeah_Right

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I'm a woman, i never have. It would have to be fairly violent to cause bleeding

I'm not doubting you but I do find it surprising. I'm not talking about a pool of blood that soaks the mattress. Just a little bit. A few drops. I assumed everyone would have experienced that at some point.

AudreyHepburn

Faugheen wrote: »

There was blood on his bed. Yes or No?

The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is.

I think we will all have to accept there was some blood on the sheets - how much I don’t know.

But that doesn’t make it rape.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

There was blood on his bed. Yes or No?

The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is.

Sure why not say there was 25 men there, and that she was tied to the bed.

The bed was NOT covered in her blood.

tretorn

meeeeh wrote: »

No I don't. People can have whatever conversations they want but if someone turns to be a dick when those conversations become public, then you can't force me to cheer them, to buy their sponsor products or similar.

How is it ok to refer to a man as a dick.

If you want to stop women being referred to as sluts then stop calling men dickheads and dicks.

You dont call women dicks so its derogatory to refer to a man as a dick.

Everyone woman under the age of thirty is to hand in her phone to the phone police now and if she has used the word dick in relation to a perceived fault with a person of the male gender she is to be fired.

As for people who state they are fully sure their sons dont talk derogatorily about women, you can bet the parents of the teen boys in Cork who ticked female classes names also thought their sons were whiter than white too.

Heads out of your asses you paragons of virtue, you havent a clue.

Neither Jackson or Oldings parents had a clue either, probably.

Yeah_Right

Calina wrote: »

You don't get to determine that. She does.

Apologies. I will rephrase. With the extra information, I would be able to offer an informed opinion on whether or not I think the word slut is offensive. Of course the woman in that hypothetical situation has the right to take offense no matter my opinion. And I have the right to think she is being ridiculous.

AudreyHepburn

OwlsZat wrote: »

Any chance we can have a poll for the complainant

A) Was raped but not believed
Wasn't raped but lied when afraid of slut shaming

Are they the only possibilities?

C) A misunderstanding - they genuinely believed she was consenting. She genuinely wasn’t and thought they knew but it wasn’t made clear
D) it was consensual but she regrets it

Appledreams15

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You seem obsessed by there being some blood on the bed. Have you never had a sexual encounter that resulted in some bleeding? Because I find that really surprising.

I'm a woman, i never have. It would have to be fairly violent to cause bleeding

tritium wrote: »

Do the folks being called rapists and misogynists also get to determine whether they should be offended by it? Only meeeh seems to think that’s different for some reason......

I never said how men should feel when called misogynus, I said the word by itself is not a slur. That has nothing to do with my interpretation, that is dictionary definition.

ArthurDayne

meeeeh wrote: »

You got very uppity around statement that you have no clue what woman feels when she is called a slut. I don't like term mansplainng but being told constantly here how being called slut is not disrespectful, like it's some sort of a term of endearment is a bit tiring.

I am just giving you a chance how woman with her experiences as woman should feel being called a slut. I wouldn'twant to hurt your feelings by telling you don't have a clue as a man. That would be sexist.

Honestly, I will really have to go back and read my previous posts to identify where along the line I have been dictating to people how they should and should not feel about being called a slut or any other word for that matter. Even at that, when did I ever say that the word slut was not disrespectful ? All I have said, consistently, is that the use of bad language (most especially of all in private conversation) is highly context-sensitive and we have to be careful about using people's private statements as being definitive reflections of their views and opinions.

For fear of being called presumptuous, and in accordance with Mrsmum's logic that I simply could never hope to understand women, perhaps I can use a personal example from a different type of discrimination. I grew up in the North and right from early childhood have experience of being subjected to sectarian slurs. 'Fenian c*nt / Kill all Taigs smeared on a wall beside my primary school / walking past towering bonfires with all my cultural emblems engulfed in flames -- all in a context of political violence and killing. I lived in a majority Loyalist town and there was very little I could do about it. Did I like it if someone drove past and shouted 'Fenian c*nt' as I walked down the street? No. Did it hurt or make me feel angry? Yes.

I worked in a shop in the town alongside people from Protestant/Unionist backgrounds. We called eachother Fenians and Huns and all sorts -- it was a laugh. Do I have any doubt that some of those Unionist guys had ever used the term 'Fenian' among their own Unionist friends? Of course not. But these guys also hung out with Catholics / Nationalists, some had girlfriends from 'the other side'. These guys were not sectarian -- views had softened even if the divisive legacy of sectarianism lingered.

So what I am saying here is that the use of derogatory language is incredibly nuanced and context-sensitive from person-to-person. A random guy shouting 'Fenian c*nt' directly at me on the street would hurt me personally more than someone using the term in a Whatsapp group. I wouldn't just automatically assume that someone who makes a sectarian joke about me on some Whatsapp group behind my back is automatically a sectarian person who shoudl be cast from their job and their name dragged through the mud. I say 'Hun' all the time but on a serious level I couldn't care less if someone is a Protestant or a Unionist!

I'm not dictating to anyone on how they should feel -- nor am I saying that everyone should be like me. I am merely imploring people not to take the private comments that people make as being indicative of their true serious views. Imagine we enforced a world like that? A Dystopia of linguistic stringency where our every word at the dinner table or the pub is audited, scrutinised and interpreted as being utterly and completely indicative of what we believe and how we think people should be treated.

Is that the world you want? If not, then ask yourself why not. Are we to live in a world where everyone is crucified at the altar of unobtainable moral perfection ?

OwlsZat

Any chance we can have a poll for the complainant

A) Was raped but not believed

Wasn't raped but lied when afraid of slut shaming

Are they the only possibilities?

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You were saying 2 yrs away from Ireland and they've lost sharpness. I'm saying they'd be playing provincial equivalent rugby..

The point was around Jackson representing Ireland again (I suspect it’s a bit of a moot point for Olding tbh). You could apply it to Ulster too though, keep them “suspended” till end of season. Neither would be ready for match intensity straight away in all likelihood so it’s an approach that gives everyone something

Calina wrote: »

You don't get to determine that. She does.

Do the folks being called rapists and misogynists also get to determine whether they should be offended by it? Only meeeh seems to think that’s different for some reason......

tritium wrote: »

Im not sure I understand your question?

You were saying 2 yrs away from Ireland and they've lost sharpness. I'm saying they'd be playing provincial equivalent rugby..

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Competitive action at provincial level, wherever, though Tritium?

Im not sure I understand your question?

Calina

Yeah_Right wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel?

I know you weren't asking me but if you were, I would need more info.
Who is calling her a slut?
What is the context of the conversation?
Once I know that then I would be able to determine whether she should give a **** or not.

You don't get to determine that. She does.

Hopefully the IRFU and Ulster deal with the lads careers quickly. For everyone's sake.

For me the whole episode has taken away from what should have been a really positive year for Ireland with the Grand Slam win. It should be clocking up the pages on boards rather than being dwarfed by this very unfortunate night.

Anyone know of a timeline for decision making on the duo?

Yeah_Right

meeeeh wrote: »

So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel?

I know you weren't asking me but if you were, I would need more info.
Who is calling her a slut?
What is the context of the conversation?
Once I know that then I would be able to determine whether she should give a **** or not.

tritium wrote: »

Thing is ‘at this time’ there’s no chance they’ll represent Ireland. With two years out of competitive action they’ll be well off the pace. If I was the irfu I’d put something out like they won’t be considered for 6 months knowing that they wouldn’t be ready anyway. Then again I’m of the view that what they’ve gone through to get to a not guilty verdict is more than enough if punishments required for the WhatsApp stuff in terms of time served

Competitive action at provincial level, wherever, though Tritium?

mfceiling wrote: »

Good lad....the first ever person I've put on my ignore list.

Great i've done the same. Every poster i've replied to here dealt with the issues and didn't get personal and insulting bar yourself.