Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I'd also really like to affirm: a girl going into a bedroom -does not mean she wants to have sex.

In fact, I think we are all familiar with this scenario: the man may say some excuse to get the woman to see the bedroom. I.e "I want to show you the fish/book I have/music I have."

A woman walking into a man's bedroom does not mean she wants to have sex, and again you are arrogant to assume so.

Lets hope this case knocked home the seriousness of: Ask someone do they want to have sex before you proceed, or you could ruin your life/career.

It's still he said she said after.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Would it be within the remit of World Rugby Governing Body to step in and prevent other clubs offering them contracts, does anyone know?

They have brought the game in general into disrepute.

Would send a very strong message.

That's exterem, way OTT.

The reason these guys are gone from Ireland and Ulster is optics, the type of conversations they had about women do not sit well with the organisations and more importantly with the sponsors of those organisations.

Just like Tiger banging Perkins waitresses in the parking lot was poor optics for his sponsors.

Jackson and Olding have not done anything illegal, I'm sure there are many out there is professional rugby that have done worse than send messages that we're in very poor taste.

They can't be denied a livelehood in places where the optics are less important just because of that.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was decided by the court it wasn't rape, so that means it was consensual as the only sober witness claimed.

Are you saying the IRFU set themselves up to be higher than the court and tried this case themselves?
That's one big claim.

Of course they do.

An awful lot of organisations do.

The bar for a sacking is far lower than that for a criminal conviction.

It would be a crazy world otherwise.

pjohnson wrote: »

Sure Jamie is currently not employed but that was a month or so ago. What about Andy Gray and Richard Keys had no problems getting their careers back on track after comments they had made did they? Gray even worked in England a few years later again. If its actual crimes then an actual convicted rapist still plays for Waterford. Jermaine Pennant played for Birmingham wearking an Anklet. How many athletes across various fields have been convicted of drink driving?

So explain your hysteria again?

If it was a matter of money, neither player would have been at Ulster in the first place, they'd already be in England or France.

It's a desire to represent one's country, a right to privacy, and a matter of respecting the court's verdict. All of them thwarted by a blue-haired twitter mob and a spineless IRFU.

goz83 wrote: »

It doesnt matter if the woman said yes, yes and yes, I want you to fcuk me every 10 seconds.

Have you ever had sex?

Nermal wrote: »

If it was a matter of money, neither player would have been at Ulster in the first place, they'd already be in England or France.

It's a desire to represent one's country, a right to privacy, and a matter of respecting the court's verdict. All of them thwarted by a blue-haired twitter mob and a spineless IRFU.

I know. Hell they will probably earn more now they are free from IRFU.

pjohnson wrote: »

I know. Hell they will probably earn more now they are free from IRFU.

Yep and with a payoff in their backpocket and compo from the Beeb.

Delighted for them that they will at least be financially rewared after what they have been put through.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.

Weird? You're joking right? I see the point of it completely sailed over your head.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.

I’ve had sex once or twice in my time

Might be just how the post was written. The pad is constantly freezing since the latest update, so takes forever to write.

Point i was making is that the woman could give verbal consent every few seconds.....or there might have been no sex or contact at all. One false claim will ruin a mans life while the woman remains anonymous. To me, that’s a massive injustice which needs to be changed, but there is no appetite to correct this, because there would be whailing from the usual suspects about women not being believed.

pjohnson wrote: »

He is busy organising his complaint to World Rugby tbf

Any sign of those links?

pjohnson wrote: »

To what?

One where I asked you to link me to where I said the two lads wouldn't find clubs.

Two, the link to prove that Andy Grey and Richard Keyes and Jermaine Pennant all managed to earn more money after they fooked up...which you suggested...only a little while ago.

Silentcorner wrote: »

One where I asked you to link me to where I said the two lads wouldn't find clubs.

Two, the link to prove that Andy Grey and Richard Keyes and Jermaine Pennant all managed to earn more money after they fooked up...which you suggested...only a little while ago.

Ah yes because everyones payslips are publicly available. Great question.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

How would a man be believed even if he did go through the consent thing before sex?
Say its done, s/he agrees, away they go.
Then later there's a change of mind and s/he cries rape. Isnt it now a 'he said, s/he said' scenario, with who to believe?

Life is really just getting tougher imo.

Its always been a he said she said when it comes to non violent rape cases.

It is not easy on either gender.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Actually defendants right to anonymity is something they should be marching for (In the North), or hashtagging or whatever...its nuts that they are named in the media...

Agreed. Such cases should be held in-camera, or with very strict reporting restrictions. Anyone breaking the rules should be dealt with harshly, as to break anonymity is to effectively destroy lives. Down south, the alleged victim and defendant has anonymity, but if the alleged victim agrees to be named, the defendant will also be named. The defendant has less rights than the alleged victim which flies in the face of equality and presumption of innocence.

goz83 wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.

I’ve had sex once or twice in my time

Might be just how the post was written. The pad is constantly freezing since the latest update, so takes forever to write.

Point i was making is that the woman could give verbal consent every few seconds.....or there might have been no sex or contact at all. One false claim will ruin a mans life while the woman remains anonymous. To me, that’s a massive injustice which needs to be changed, but there is no appetite to correct this, because there would be whailing from the usual suspects about women not being believed.

I am sympathetic but the risk a man runs of being falsely accused of rape is significantly lower than the risk a woman runs of being raped. Quite simply it is a relatively lower risk by magnitudes. And women do not get much help in the courts for rape cased because in a he said she said the benefit of the doubt tends to flow to the innocent unless proven guilty defendent. And rape victims lived are often utterly destroyed and they get no closure and that is magnitudes more likely to happen than a false rape accusation is.