nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some women need to have personal responsibility and not end up drunk and alone in strangers bedrooms.

And some men should have responsibility and keep their dick in their pants or they might lose their job.

Roger Hassenforder

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You need Joe to mansplain it for you? :rolleyes::D

Jesus Christ, dont mention "mansplaining", facehugger is liable to explode in a burst of bitter juice and pith.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Really grasping at straws now - quite sad to witness.

I think it is those welcoming the 'great news' that they were 'sacked' are the ones grasping at straws.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

I doubt anyone mind them being paid off.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

And some men should have responsibility and keep their dick in their pants or they might lose their job.

I thought it was their Whatsapp messages that lost them their jobs.

And I agree, EVERYONE needs to review their personal responsibilities. But of course that is not the message the mob ever sent on this one, is it.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

Mrsmum, yesterday you clearly demonstrated your complete naivety with 'the scene' as you called it, i.e. teenagers and their sexual activity. You stated it was all 'petty' stuff, suggesting innocence. The fact that you actually think you know what even your own son, never mind his friends and their peers are up to, clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the matter.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting they're up to anything nefarious, just what the average teenager gets up to, and it isnt 'petty' stuff.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

And some men should have responsibility and keep their dick in their pants or they might lose their job.

Fair enough if they raped the conplainant.
The didnt.
Indeed according to one testimony, their dick was removed from their pants.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

I doubt anyone mind them being paid off.

Of course they don't. Optics, sweep it all under the carpet.

NAGDEFI

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/ulster-rugby-players-wear-black-makeup-in-ethiopian-photo-paddy-jackson-dressed-as-slave-30424197.html

Came upon this old, totally unrelated story, you couldn't make it up. Paddy, you seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time a lot..bizarre.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Really grasping at straws now - quite sad to witness.

I think it is those welcoming the 'great news' that they were 'sacked' are the ones grasping at straws.

Whether you're happy with the decision or not the fact is they were sacked.
That is how people in contracts get sacked, happens a lot with managers
(Personally not sure how I feel)

facehugger99

Mrsmum wrote: »

I doubt anyone mind them being paid off.

Didn't you get the memo Mrsmum? It's all about the pay off now apparently. We're supposed to be enraged about it I think.

Francie and co. have secured a great victory behind the scenes for the two lads.

Apparently the joke's on us the whole time - who would have thunk it?:pac::pac::pac:

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Actually i used it as a nice 10yr span to cover the years where young adults are most susceptible to gob****ery and behaviour, their later years would acknowlege included some moments which were possibly not their finest hours.

As the teens/complainant would say
"Lolz"
Did you just think of that riposte too late after premature posting precluded its insertion ?

At least we can agree it was stupid though.
Not criminal, not deserving of having his life ruined.

Their lives would not be ruined if they hadn't valued their reputation as "top shaggers" more than they valued their reputations as professional sportspeople and decent human beings.

tritium

sugarman wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much the case in all professional sporting contracts? They'd legally be entitled to see out their contracts or come to a settlement . They can only ever terminate a players contract if it's in breach of club rules.

I’d wondered about that tbh. It made very little sense in light of the not guilty verdict the Olding and Jackson would be sacked and Gilroy, should made the most offensive tweet was dropped for two weeks.

Unless money changed hands in the background I’d say most employment lawyers would have been frothing at the mouth to get on that

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Fair enough if they raped the conplainant.
The didnt.
Indeed according to one testimony, their dick was removed from their pants.

A girl that gets raped because she was in someone's room also didn't want it to happen. Francie is pointing out importance of being responsible, so we can assume that personal responsibility not to end up in stickiy situation extends to everyone not just young girls like Francie likes to constantly repeat.

SeanW

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?

Because women never call men "dick" "dickhead" "wanker" etc? Like, literally never? Assuming you are a woman, I am sure that you would like every private conversation you have ever had to be made public so that you can be shamed for using these terms?

If not, that smacks of hypocrasy.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Good article hear about it...

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/07/less-than-2-of-rape-trials-in-northern-ireland-end-in-conviction-why-the-system-needs-reformed/

This should be a seminal moment in how we conduct trials...this was a trial like no others.

Actually, it's a pack of lies.

Less than 2% of cases ... lead to a conviction?

So 98% of men brought to trial walk away in the UK? I highly doubt that, but that is what is implied there with that headline. That would be quite severe, but given the way the UK prosecutes sexual assault cases. Take the case of Mark Pearson, who was tried on the basis of evidence proving his innocence beyond doubt. The case was bat**** crazy yet it went to trial. That sort of contracts the claims lies in your article.

Rape is a serious crime and it carries a high burden of proof, requiring certainty “beyond a reasonable doubt” in order to convict.

The implication here is that requiring proof to convict is an impediment to justice. The reverse is true. Requiring a high standard of proof is an essential component of justice.

The goal of the justice system in trials of this nature must surely be to find as many actual rapists guilty as possible,

No, it is categorically not. The cornerstone of any system of justice worthy of the name is to first protect the innocent. Finding as many of the actual criminals guilty as possible is very important, but is secondary.

This is despite the fact that the Home Office estimates that only a tiny percentage of allegations are fabricated, and that most of those fall away as soon as police begin investigating, let alone before reaching a courtroom.

As Mark Pearson can tell you, this is a lie.

There were questions as to what the complainant expected to happen in the accused’s bedroom, why she went to a house with people she didn’t know well.

Yes, it's important to understand the lead up to the events in dispute, these questions are legitimate.

4. We urgently need to have a compulsory comprehensive relationship and sexuality education programme in all schools which includes consent and toxic masculinity.

I stopped reading at this point. "Toxic masculinity" is the same, to my mind, as (((Jew))), the N-word, commie, libtard, redneck, rape culture and other terms of hate. As soon as you see this term being used in earnest, you can safely dismiss the author as a hate-monger.

Again, to those claiming that the justice system in the UK is too heavily weighted towards the (alleged) perpetrator and not enough towards the (alleged) victim (the alleged being left out in the majority of such screeds) can you please explain to me what happened to Mark Pearson. In particular, I have the following questions.

Why did the Mark Pearson case go anywhere near a courtroom?
Why has no-one gone to jail or been punished in any way for the Mark Pearson case? So far as my knowledge extends, the false accuser has not even been named let alone jailed, and no prosecutor have been fired, disbarred or jailed for malicious prosecution. Not one. Why is this?
What would have happened to Mark Pearson had there not been CCTV proving his innocence?
Is the Mark Pearson case not a symptom of something else going on in UK justice?

joe40

givyjoe wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

Mrsmum, yesterday you clearly demonstrated your complete naivety with 'the scene' as you called it, i.e. teenagers and their sexual activity. You stated it was all 'petty' stuff, suggesting innocence. The fact that you actually think you know what even your own son, never mind his friends and their peers are up to, clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the matter.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting they're up to anything nefarious, just what the average teenager gets up to, and it isnt 'petty' stuff.

Are you seriously telling a mother that you know more about her son and his behaviour than she does.
Just out of interest what is your expertise with young people and their behaviour. Young people overall that is.

Mrsmum

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You need Joe to mansplain it for you? :rolleyes::D

He saved me wasting my time explaining to those who don't want to see.

NAGDEFI

The severed contract with Ulster Rugby and the IRFU was inevitable. Not because of raging mobs but too large a section of the general populace were against their return.

I wish the 2 lads well in their rugby careers, i hope they mature and move on with their lives. I hope their mental health isn't effected.

They are 2 human beings at the end of the day, who i don't know. They are not Heinrich Himmler and Reinhardt Heydrich, responsible for genocide.

Not being allowed play for their province and country is a major punishment for them.

Personally i would have preferred a year's suspension but that's not very practical.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Their lives would not be ruined if they hadn't valued their reputation as "top shaggers" more than they valued their reputations as professional sportspeople and decent human beings.

They didnt swop one for the other, nor are they mutually exclusive, in fact their profession led them to be highly desirable as a shag for young girls, who would no doubt boast about shagging PJ the other night, he was a fairly crap / legendry shag". Do you think this doesnt happen?

Two young males didnt decide to sacrifice all they had achieved to achieve momentary gratification. They engaged in a consensual threesome with a pretty girl with a lot of alcohol on board, and boasted about it the next day. That is all they did. In fact read PJs single contrubution to the conversation. They could have one or two girls any night they go out, unpalatable as they may seem.
Some girls throw themselves at these guys.

Technically the advertising standards authority should be looking into SOs claim of a spitroast, as apparently it was one skewer short.

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

Mrsmum, yesterday you clearly demonstrated your complete naivety with 'the scene' as you called it, i.e. teenagers and their sexual activity. You stated it was all 'petty' stuff, suggesting innocence. The fact that you actually think you know what even your own son, never mind his friends and their peers are up to, clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the matter.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting they're up to anything nefarious, just what the average teenager gets up to, and it isnt 'petty' stuff.

I love the way you lump all teenagers in together regarding where they are in their sexual journey when in reality there are huge differences. Some of them are highly sexualised and some are not at all and everything inbetween. Lumping them all in together is as wrong as if I lumped all men in together because some are rapists. Regardless is this post some way of telling me I know nothing ?

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

A girl that gets raped because she was in someone's room also didn't want it to happen. Francie is pointing out importance of being responsible, so we can assume that personal responsibility not to end up in stickiy situation extends to everyone not just young girls like Francie likes to constantly repeat.

I agree. No one wants/deserves to be raped.

Francie is arguing a quantum of personal responsibility must come into it. To ask the question isnt victim blaming, nor to suggest action that might mitigate the risk of being raped is a reasonable course of action, doesnt make someone a rape apologist.

The rejection of any other opinion not shared by oneself is striking in attitudes here.

joe40

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

A girl that gets raped because she was in someone's room also didn't want it to happen. Francie is pointing out importance of being responsible, so we can assume that personal responsibility not to end up in stickiy situation extends to everyone not just young girls like Francie likes to constantly repeat.

I agree. No one wants/deserves to be raped.

Francie is arguing a quantum of personal responsibility must come into it. To ask the question isnt victim blaming, nor to suggest action that might mitigate the risk of being raped is a reasonable course of action, doesnt make someone a rape apologist.

The rejection of any other opinion not shared by oneself is striking in attitudes here.

Absolutely not. It is perfectly fine to talk about personal responsibility to groups of teenagers, for parents to talk about it with children etc. Plenty of nights I would be reluctant to walk home.
Here is the important bit when you are talking about or investigating a specific incident. the victim has no responsibility.
There is a massive distinction. I'm people like francie don't get it

kerplun k

Delighted with the news today. Sensible decision from the IRFU. This kind of behavior should never be tolerated. It sends out a strong message to everyone that this kind of disgusting behavior is never acceptable at any level.

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I agree. No one wants/deserves to be raped.

Francie is arguing a quantum of personal responsibility must come into it. To ask the question isnt victim blaming, nor to suggest action that might mitigate the risk of being raped is a reasonable course of action, doesnt make someone a rape apologist.

The rejection of any other opinion not shared by oneself is striking in attitudes here.

So the next time a man is up on a rape case in more or less the same circumstances and let's pretend you know him, will you be saying to him what the hell did you and your mate end up in a room with a drunk woman for, didn't you see what happened to PJ ? Because you see men need to mind themselves just as much as women don't you think. A rape charge doesn't go away even if found not guilty.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

So the next time a man is up on a rape case in more or less the same circumstances and let's pretend you know him, will you be saying to him what the hell did you and your mate end up in a room with a drunk woman for, didn't you see what happened to PJ ? Because you see men need to mind themselves just as much as women don't you think. A rape charge doesn't go away even if found not guilty.

Who said any different.
The problem here is the mob will drown out any call for women to be responsible and dare anyone publicly suggest it.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Who said any different.
The problem here is the mob will drown out any call for women to be responsible and dare anyone publicly suggest it.

Francie you concentrate on the responsibility of women all the time in post after post after post. But great to know you believe it's as much the man's responsibility to control the situation too.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

So the next time a man is up on a rape case in more or less the same circumstances and let's pretend you know him, will you be saying to him what the hell did you and your mate end up in a room with a drunk woman for, didn't you see what happened to PJ ? Because you see men need to mind themselves just as much as women don't you think. A rape charge doesn't go away even if found not guilty.

Who said any different.
The problem here is the mob will drown out any call for women to be responsible and dare anyone publicly suggest it.

Responsible for what exactly. Talking in general if she is is raped or assaulted in any way she has no reponsibilty. Do you understand no responsibility for a crime commited by someone else
That is like a comment from fifties.

Lackey

ArthurDayne wrote: »

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

3. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

reposting from ulster rugby thread

anyone who types anything/sends pics/gifs etc and thinks it will 100% stay private weather famous (but especially anyone in a high profile position) or not in this day and age is an idiot.
There is always the chance no matter how small it will be screen shot and passed around.

you can argue the rights or wrongs of this til the cows come home but it is what it is.

even in my VERY low profile job it is in my contract if I commit anything, personally. outside of work, that is deemed to bring the company name into disrepute. It will effect my employment.
It was also in the players contracts not to bring their own names into disrepute.

As a strong defender of not adhering to the PC brigade....PC had noting to do with this.

NAGDEFI

I hope this thread is closed tomorrow.

I feel we've all said what we felt we needed to say. Every angle has been covered and we're all repeating ourselves. The Ulster/IRFU verdicts brought some type of closure, though obviously for all the parties their lives will never be the same again.

It's time for closure on threads like this too.

Regardless of whatever angle we are all coming from this is a sad day. For Ulster and Irish rugby, sport in general and Ireland. If people have any empathy within them they won't be taking any pleasure from the decisions made on 14th April 2018.

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

Responsible for what exactly. Talking in general if she is is raped or assaulted in any way she has no reponsibilty. Do you understand no responsibility for a crime commited by someone else
That is like a comment from fifties.

Why are you deliberately misunderstanding what is being said.
You can talk until the cows come home about what should happen in an ideal world.

She may not be responsible for the assault, rape or bad treatment
But her lack of personal responsibility allowed her to be in a situation where the odds are much higher.

Simple point really, but totally ignored to get at issues with morality and men.