Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Mrsmum wrote: »

Many loving relationships started off exactly like that. Course they would have been with decent guys not ones who admitted their actions " betrayed the values of my family and those of the wider public".

yes indeed I know a lot of celebrities who married the groupies they brought home for a one night stand, not!

The story is now about the core values of the IRFU and the corporates.

How wonderfully upstanding they are. :rolleyes:

And the morally outraged can feck off to the sidelines.

Am I really reading this? Waterford United have a convicted rapist under contract? You actually couldn’t make this up- where are the protests/social media mob?

And the moral of this story is 'stay off watzap!'

Mrsmum wrote: »

Will you get off the stage. I never once said your pov was irrelevant. Go back and read my post and show me where I said that. I said what you are saying is from a man's pov and then gave you a woman's pov. And for a person who said they have and indeed will continue to call women sluts, you are really really touchy about the term mansplaining which is what I felt you were doing.

Why should I ever 'get off the stage' when people are calling for every private morally questionable statement we make to be used as the be-all-and-end-all of our beliefs and deprive us of our careers? That is what you are advocating is it not? A 'thought police' world where the private statements and jokes of citizens must be subject to moral audit, and all those who use derogatory language regardless of context should be cast from their jobs.

Like all dictatorships though, the one you envisage is clearly based on the doctrine of 'do as I say but not as I do'. You write eloquently about how being called a slut makes you personally feel. I never questioned how it makes you feel -- I never disputed it -- and I never purported to tell you how it should make you feel. You then, with remarkable arrogance, used the term 'mansplaining' to describe my sincere attempts at debating with you. You had no regard to how generalising my views based on my gender would make me feel did you?

But of course, the hypocrite that you are, you have not even offered an apology for your derogatory statement -- yet you have the sheer audacity to demand that others should not only apologise for using sexist terms in private, but should be sacked for it and categorised as sexists.

For the record, and in the interests of maintaining consistency in my arguments (i.e. not being a hypocrite) I don't think you're a sexist just because you used a generalising term in your private life. I'm sure you do not filter your language in the comfort of your home in the same way you might do in a work email or a public lecture. I know you didn't set out to hurt my feelings or the feelings of other men on this site. You used a silly term carelessly, as we all do. What angers me however are the double standards you apply. It seems that it's OK for you to use whatever derogatory term you want to generalise me and my opinions i.e. my views are 'mansplaining' just because I'm a man --- yet it's not OK for anyone else?

Another Rape Crisis centre lady(Susan McKay) on RTE there and STILL not a mention of the role women have to play going forward, if situations like this are to disappear.

Soapboxing and bandwagoning on feminist mantras instead.

C__MC wrote: »

Sad day folks when two innocent men lose their job after being acquitted in a marathon trial by a unanimous descion.

Nothing to do with the outcome of the trial. The behavior of these lads was scummy and the type a professional sports team would want well shot of if they don't want backlash from their partners and supporters. No surprise whatsoever.

Omackeral wrote: »

Any woman that says “mansplaining” most likely has a loaded or sexist POV anyway.

This Aussie politician handled it beautifully when he was hit with it by a fellow senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

Yeah it's a sexist way of saying to men to shut up your opinion doesn't matter because you are a man.

Anyone using that term had a nerve asking others to not be sexist.

Deleted User wrote: »

Heard a radio interview in the week where it was revealed that during the Judges summing up, council for Jackson “On instruction” ie told by Jackson to do so, objected to the tone used by the Judge. Apparently, it was suggested that her tone was more sympathetic to the girl. It was dismissed. It further shows the arrogance of the accused.

Hi Maryanne84

It is well within the realms of the concept of a fair trial that an accused can question any perceived lack of impartiality. There is nothing arrogant about having a keen interest in ensuring you don't get sent to prison on the basis of a trial which you believe is being conducted improperly or unfairly -- even if your belief is mistaken. This was a criminal trial, not a polite discussion.

Furthermore, 'On instruction' can also mean that it came from Jackson's solicitor rather than Jackson himself -- did they really specify that Jackson personally requested this? Maybe they did, and fair enough if so, but if you think you aren't getting a fair trial then it is both reasonable and indeed sensible to voice that concern.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think there is an injunction around that case. As far as I know he was a minor at the time ?

https://theukdatabase.com/2014/11/01/3-kildare-residents-each-receive-suspended-sentences-for-sexual-abuse-of-schoolgirl/