Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I am seriously asking you how women and men should behave on nights out in relation to "getting off" with each other as they used to say in my day. I'm not trying to be awkward but are you saying a girl shouldn't go back to a guys house unless she wants full sex. I'm not trying to catch anyone out or deflect, i'm being serious. When I was younger plenty of nights would have been like that

Dont forget me Joe, im anxious to stop doing something if its leading to Roger jnr going out raping at night

Ill repeat as you might have missed it:

A boy might take too much alcohol /drugs, and is therefore unable to (reasonably per law!) determine the sex may be nonconsensual.

My advice therefore to him would be dont drink , take too much drugs whereby your judgement may be impaired

How is that dangerous advice?

That sounds like good advice to me if that is the affect drink has on him.

Deleted User wrote: »

The message to our children is, actions have consequences. Be prepared to accept them.

The trial was sufficient to send that message.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Hilarious how people who think they can say what they like themselves have such a big problem when someone else uses a word they don't like. Channel your inner female and put up with it like we have to do all the time.

Your use of the word is completely sexist. Paint it any way you like, but a sexist word remains a sexist word. Your denial of this is just more head in sand arrogance.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

Let me mansplain it properly. Mansplaining is a preferred femisists word used to describe a man explaining something to a woman which she, or another woman takes offense to.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

More generalised sexism with a sprinkle of patronisation.

Mrsmum wrote: »

You suspect incorrectly. And I also have four teenagers.
See joe40's post to explain what actually happened.

You needed a man to explain what you were talking about? Even though that man got it wrong

I pray you never see the contents of your teenagers phones. I have a teenager and while I consider him to be a well balanced person for his age...(already talking about college and he’s not even sat his jnr cert) I am not naive enough to think he hasn’t been crude with his friends and said things that would be in bad taste.

joe40 wrote: »

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.

I just skim read the last 20 odd pages, so I might have missed a bit, but I think he is telling her that she doesn’t know them as well as she thinks. Sure, how could she? She’s been on here all day and for all she knows, FrancieBrady could be one of her kids posting in here :pac:

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I am seriously asking you how women and men should behave on nights out in relation to "getting off" with each other as they used to say in my day. I'm not trying to be awkward but are you saying a girl shouldn't go back to a guys house unless she wants full sex. I'm not trying to catch anyone out or deflect, i'm being serious. When I was younger plenty of nights would have been like that

I am not saying any such thing.

Go back and read what I said.

Ok maybe it is to the guys bedroom she shouldn't go unless she wants full sex.
You said the "real tragedy" is that no one is warrning of the dangers of young ladies in bedroom of strange men. I can get the exact post if you wish.

joe40 wrote: »

Ok maybe it is to the guys bedroom she shouldn't go unless she wants full sex.
You said the "real tragedy" is that no one is warrning of the dangers of young ladies in bedroom of strange men. I can get the exact post if you wish.

Who in the public realm has said anything about the responsibilities of young women?

You know the people responsible for such things like the Rape Crisis Centre who have had plenty to say about rugby's responsibilities and a man's responsibilities.

Mrsmum wrote: »

More ranting and raging against the world.

Very noble of you to admit it

I'll be honest there are times I wish they would just simply turn around and tell the raving mob to go **** themselves. The lads were idiots but they arent rapists because that was settled in a court of law. As far as I'm concerned it should have ended there. As for the whats app messages they werent public statements they were private and should have no bearing beyond getting the bollocks ate out of them in private.

Fact is from where I look this cancer media toxicity is the equivelent of a 21st century salem witch trials. Ignorant Bullshyte is the order of the day and people cant accept the logical arguments made in court so they want a cancer media kangaroo court.

I dont agree that their behaviour is acceptable but the public humiliation is more than enough to change their behaviour.

Anything else like losing their careers is no longer justice its malicious vengence and will only serve to come back and bite these toxic idiots down the road in some other form.

facehugger99 wrote: »

That wasn't what was "proven" and if you think that's the 'message' from this case you're sadly mistaken.

The message is actions have consequences.

The message is don't think because you play international rugby you have a license to do what you want.

The message is don't treat people like dirt.

Paddy Pantsdown and his simian mate are learning their lesson the hard way - you still sound like you've a way to go.

So the jury was wrong? You still think they are guilty.

facehugger99 wrote: »

That wasn't what was "proven" and if you think that's the 'message' from this case you're sadly mistaken.

The message is actions have consequences.

The message is don't think because you play international rugby you have a license to do what you want.

The message is don't treat people like dirt.

Paddy Pantsdown and his simian mate are learning their lesson the hard way - you still sound like you've a way to go.

Yet you keep on saying this when the only sober witness said she saw people enjoying their behaviour.

Who was getting treated like dirt again?

Paddy Pantsdown and his simian mate

Who is talking about 'respect'?

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

In your case the drink was going to make hom do something. Where did I say you shouldn't advised somebody not to mitigate risks. Was that not one of the numbered points in your post that I agreed with.

Joe, Now I'm confused.
Are you contradicting yourself or what?

joe40 wrote: »

Points 1,2 and 3 I agree with.
It is this sentence that you use which for me sums up the danger of your position

"behaviour s that might lead boys to rape"

No girl (or boy for that matter) can engage in behaviour that would lead someone else to rape. That is classic
"victim blaming" (I usually detest buzz words but that fits)
I'm all for teaching personal responsibility but you are never responsible for the behaviour of someone else.
That is not absolutism.

which led to the question you're now flip flopping on, and I've just noticed misquoted me.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Do you disagree with this position so:
A boy might take too much alcohol /drugs, and is therefore unable to (reasonably per law!) determine the sex may be nonconsensual.

My advice therefore to him would be dont drink , take too much drugs whereby your judgement may be impaired

How is that dangerous?

I just checked back I did not misquote you. You laid out 3 numbered point and I agreed with all of them.

You then talked about "behaviours that might lead boys to rape"
That was the dangerous message I was referring to. To both yourself and francie I have consistently said I would give advice especially to my own kids.
I just do not like linking advice to specific incidents such as this one.
Francie was saying that the lady from the rape crisis centre should have been giving safety advice women at this time.

One for the rugby experts:
Is there anything to stop Jackson doing a Bundi Aki and declaring for another international side by playing in one of their club teams? I am thinking Italy maybe.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

In your case the drink was going to make hom do something. Where did I say you shouldn't advised somebody not to mitigate risks. Was that not one of the numbered points in your post that I agreed with.

Joe, Now I'm confused.
Are you contradicting yourself or what?

joe40 wrote: »

Points 1,2 and 3 I agree with.
It is this sentence that you use which for me sums up the danger of your position

"behaviour s that might lead boys to rape"

No girl (or boy for that matter) can engage in behaviour that would lead someone else to rape. That is classic
"victim blaming" (I usually detest buzz words but that fits)
I'm all for teaching personal responsibility but you are never responsible for the behaviour of someone else.
That is not absolutism.

which led to the question you're now flip flopping on, and I've just noticed misquoted me.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Do you disagree with this position so:
A boy might take too much alcohol /drugs, and is therefore unable to (reasonably per law!) determine the sex may be nonconsensual.

My advice therefore to him would be dont drink , take too much drugs whereby your judgement may be impaired

How is that dangerous?

I was readiing over your post and I apologise I think I misunderstood you. I genuinelythought you were refering to a girls behaviour which would lead a boy to rape. Sorry about that.
Absolutely I would give advice to both genders to keep themselves safe