Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ArthurDayne wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

My position is pretty much the way things are. Your privacy is protected currently but if private messages become public, and those messages are damaging you are liable for the consequences. Whether serious or minor

Why are you trying to paint some type of dystopian future with thought police etc
I am just saying how things currently are, there is no basis for ridiculous extrapolations

And again -- you deal with the superficial. 'Ridiculous' is a very easy word to type, though I note you provide no reason for saying my extrapolations are ridiculous. I would have presumed if you find something I say to be ridiculous -- you could do me the courtesy of telling me why? Do you not agree that this trial and the way these players have judged by society, whether fairly or unfairly, will have prompted many to be scared to use objectifying language or dark humour around friends? Isn't that what you want? A world we are all perfectly mannerly and morally upstanding in all our words and conduct -- and if we are not then we should be made to suffer for it?


Clearly as we have seen from this trial, messages getting out can be damaging. But that is not the substantive issue of my argument. We are not arguing whether these messages are damaging -- because clearly we can see that they were. What we are arguing is why they are damaging and whether they even should be considered damaging when dark and objectifying humour is a very normal part of human discourse and can actually promote equality rather than restrict it.

So are you talking about these messages in particular, because that is a different argument. If you are saying the men involved were judged harshl since the comments weren't actually that bad. Then fair enough I don't agree but it is not ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is that you envisage a future where we will have to submit all private messages for external scrutiny. That is ridiculous, there is no evidence that such a future awaits nor any evidence that there is a desire for such a future anywhere.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m not taking that bait sorry but nice try.

I’ll say it again- they didn’t do anything wrong, they only realized later that she was upset and their private conversations should be used as a stick to beat them with.

Also tears and blood do not mean rape has occurred.

Yes but they weren't let go for rape, it was their what's app messages. So tell me is that a message we should give to young girls. You are there to provide two holes, don't worry about your own enjoyment.

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes but they weren't let go for rape, it was their what's app messages. So tell me is that a message we should give to young girls. You are there to provide two holes, don't worry about your own enjoyment.

How did Gilroy stay under contract?

joe40 wrote: »

Since you said genuine question.
First of all I think women know much better than we do how vulnerable they are in these positions they don't need to be told by you or I or the rape crisis centre or anyone else. They know.
They still want to meet guys and boys want to meet girls (or whatever combination) This involves the girl having to make judgement calls. Maybe she wants a sexual encounter but not full sex she has to take the chance the guy will respect that. These judgement calls are been made all the time.
Drinkaware and schools do talk about the dangers of alcohol loss of inhibition and poor decisions around sexual behaviour. Std s and unwanted pregnancy are often mentioned.
But in the aftermath of a case like this there is no need to link the Woman behaviour with any harmful effects which occurred to her. You have accepted that she felt "badly treated".
That is my view on this, you don't have to agree but thats how I feel.

Yet she did it and many more do it, every night of the week and weekend.

Yet nobody in all this debate has addressed it publicly, and when someone tried he was hounded out of his job too.

I think you are totally wrong.

joe40 wrote: »

So are you talking about these messages in particular, because that is a different argument. If you are saying the men involved were judged harshl since the comments weren't actually that bad. Then fair enough I don't agree but it is not ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is that you envisage a future where we will have to submit all private messages for external scrutiny. That is ridiculous, there is no evidence that such a future awaits nor any evidence that there is a desire for such a future anywhere.

You might point out where I said that i envisaged this happening. I asked you a hypothetical question -- that is all. It is somewhat irritating to have my extrapolations called 'ridiculous' when it would seem apparent that you have not actually even read my posts.

Were these men judged harshly for their messages? On the basis that the messages were taken by many in the public to be compelling evidence that the guys were rapists --- on the basis that they have been deprived employment and, as seems likely, the chance to reach the pinnacle of their careers -- on the basis that they have been made the symbol of male entitlement / sexism / sexual deviancy -- yes, I think the messages have been judged harshly. They were pig-headed, stupid, tasteless and offensive messages and the language/terms used were not admirable, 'cool' or necessarily remotely funny.

But they were intended privately and just because they got out in public does not mean that those messages should be seen as definitive and indicative as to how those guys see women or believe women should be treated. People are much more complex than that.

As I have said before -- I have bragged about sexual encounters to my friends. Among my friends I have referred to some women that I have slept with in all manner of crude and objectifying language. I've seen girls doing this too. Yes it's all very tasteless and context-sensitive and some people take it better than others. Yes, I guess it means I'm a d*ck sometimes and by speaking the way I do maybe there are some people who won't want to be in my company. That's fair enough. But the reasons people talk like this are similar to the reasons people go to see Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle or any other dark-humoured comedian --- for whatever reason, even good-natured and kind people enjoy dark humour because we are all flawed humans and not morally perfect angels.

Making a racist joke does not automatically make you a racist. Making a joke about Protestants doesn't automatically make a Catholic sectarian. The inference people have made is that the sexist statements of these rugby lads automatically means they are sexists and thus need to be punished for it. It's a black-and-white absolutist interpretation and I cannot see how it is ridiculous at all to say that if we applied it equally and consistently to everyone -- that this would not eventually lead us to a world where we must speak with the diligent perfection of a PR agent at all times to ensure we don't end up facing the lash of public outrage if, say, someone who doesn't like you decides to send your messages or recorded statements to a newspaper or just to your boss so that you lose your job and your reputation is tarnished.

meeeeh wrote: »

So you think there is only lesson for women in this whole saga? It's only women that need to be taught how to behave.

Who has said that?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Since you said genuine question.
First of all I think women know much better than we do how vulnerable they are in these positions they don't need to be told by you or I or the rape crisis centre or anyone else. They know.
They still want to meet guys and boys want to meet girls (or whatever combination) This involves the girl having to make judgement calls. Maybe she wants a sexual encounter but not full sex she has to take the chance the guy will respect that. These judgement calls are been made all the time.
Drinkaware and schools do talk about the dangers of alcohol loss of inhibition and poor decisions around sexual behaviour. Std s and unwanted pregnancy are often mentioned.
But in the aftermath of a case like this there is no need to link the Woman behaviour with any harmful effects which occurred to her. You have accepted that she felt "badly treated".
That is my view on this, you don't have to agree but thats how I feel.

Yet she did it and many more do it, every night of the week and weekend.

Yet nobody in all this debate has addressed it publicly, and when someone tried he was hounded out of his job too.

I think you are totally wrong.

Well this is a genuine question for you. At what stage is it safe or appropriate for a woman to go to a man room. ( just keeping it heterosexual for convenience)
I'm not trying to be awkward. Genuine question.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

So are you talking about these messages in particular, because that is a different argument. If you are saying the men involved were judged harshl since the comments weren't actually that bad. Then fair enough I don't agree but it is not ridiculous.
What is ridiculous is that you envisage a future where we will have to submit all private messages for external scrutiny. That is ridiculous, there is no evidence that such a future awaits nor any evidence that there is a desire for such a future anywhere.

You might point out where I said that i envisaged this happening. I asked you a hypothetical question -- that is all. It is somewhat irritating to have my extrapolations called 'ridiculous' when it would seem apparent that you have not actually even read my posts.

Were these men judged harshly for their messages? On the basis that the messages were taken by many in the public to be compelling evidence that the guys were rapists --- on the basis that they have been deprived employment and, as seems likely, the chance to reach the pinnacle of their careers -- on the basis that they have been made the symbol of male entitlement / sexism / sexual deviancy -- yes, I think the messages have been judged harshly. They were pig-headed, stupid, tasteless and offensive messages and the language/terms used were not admirable, 'cool' or necessarily remotely funny.

But they were intended privately and just because they got out in public does not mean that those messages should be seen as definitive and indicative as to how those guys see women or believe women should be treated. People are much more complex than that.

As I have said before -- I have bragged about sexual encounters to my friends. Among my friends I have referred to some women that I have slept with in all manner of crude and objectifying language. I've seen girls doing this too. Yes it's all very tasteless and context-sensitive and some people take it better than others. Yes, I guess it means I'm a d*ck sometimes and by speaking the way I do maybe there are some people who won't want to be in my company. That's fair enough. But the reasons people talk like this are similar to the reasons people go to see Jimmy Carr or Frankie Boyle or any other dark-humoured comedian --- for whatever reason, even good-natured and kind people enjoy dark humour because we are all flawed humans and not morally perfect angels.

Making a racist joke does not automatically make you a racist. Making a joke about Protestants doesn't automatically make a Catholic sectarian. The inference people have made is that the sexist statements of these rugby lads automatically means they are sexists and thus need to be punished for it. It's a black-and-white absolutist interpretation and I cannot see how it is ridiculous at all to say that if we applied it equally and consistently to everyone -- that this would not eventually lead us to a world where we must speak with the diligent perfection of a PR agent at all times to ensure we don't end up facing the lash of public outrage if, say, someone who doesn't like you decides to send your messages or recorded statements to a newspaper or just to your boss so that you lose your job and your reputation is tarnished.

Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction.
You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to.
In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events.
Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona.
I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women.
If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Well this is a genuine question for you. At what stage is it safe or appropriate for a woman to go to a man room. ( just keeping it heterosexual for convenience)
I'm not trying to be awkward. Genuine question.

When you can soberly assess that it is safe to do so.

Not when you are drunk and alone and in a strangers house.

Seems to me if you are going to advise men that consent must be clear, then you have to equally advise a young woman not to enter a situation where consent is blurred by alcohol, consumed by both parties.

Well thanks for your answer at least you are clear.
You do realise if all young women were to take that advice there would be alot of frustrated young men about.
In this country socialising and alcohol go hand in hand. Socialising and meeting romantic partners are also go together. Your advice is like something from rc controlled ireland that you railed against yesterday. A couple must both be sober before been in a room together.
Good luck with that

Silentcorner wrote: »

I can't make head nor tail of the point he is trying to make either.

It seems to me, he is asking you if you agree that in the future should we all be held accountable for our messages we send one another, and that there would be panels of people who's job it will be to sort out the good messages from the bad messages and then a further panel of people who may punish us for the bad messages assuming the people on the panels have the authority to punish us for our messages...have I got that right?

Not that difficult a future to imagine when we are being warned that employers are searching social media histories of potential employees.

Isn't it proposed that you will have to give access to your social media accounts if asked at US immigration?

Quite possible your private messaging will be searched as a part of that.

joe40 wrote: »

Well thanks for your answer at least you are clear.
You do realise if all young women were to take that advice there would be alot of frustrated young men about.
In this country socialising and alcohol go hand in hand. Socialising and meeting romantic partners are also go together. Your advice is like something from rc controlled ireland that you railed against yesterday. A couple must both be sober before been in a room together.
Good luck with that

I didn't read Francie's post like that at all. I read it as a woman should show some form of responsibility and assess the situation accordingly.

Seems fairly reasonable and something I encourage my daughters to do.

cloudatlas wrote: »

Most cases of rape and sexual assault occur between acquaintances not strangers. It is absurd for 51 per cent of the population to live by the limitations that the daily threat of assault imposes. Being attacked, assaulted or even being the receiver of lewd comments in the street violates a woman's right to be in any place at any time. Telling women to not go out drink have a good time, to be careful, to only go in herds is not an answer, it only perpetuates further fear. Masculine power relies on control and discipline of the body in public and private spaces... 'she was wearing a short skirt' 'she was walking alone' etc., The victim is always addressed and preventative measures in society are scoffed at and ridiculed. Sex education in school has to change. Young boys with phones are watching porn without any understanding of what they are looking at, porn ideation creates a false expectation of what happens in the bedroom, sure even the 'nice one' after he comforted the complainant sent a three some porn video to his mate.

The focus is always on the potential culpability of the person who has been assaulted, not on why the man did it.

The issues of violence and threats against women are not ones for women to address. Women are not responsible for defending themselves.

No different to telling any lad to be careful going down Sherrif St on a dark night. Sh1t happens and there are some bad people out there.

As they used to say on Hillstreet, 'Be careful out there'.

upandcumming wrote: »

Sorry, what disgraceful behaviour?

The behaviour Paddy's apologised for. It's been all over the news for weeks now- what thread do you think you're posting in?

joe40 wrote: »

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

Who mentionef this case? As we all know nothing happened there. Not guilty.

joe40 wrote: »

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

I asked you a simple question earlier.

Would your advice to this young woman be to behave exactly as she did, again?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Women do that all the time. Are you saying thare was something inherently dangerous about the woman entering paddy jacksons room.
If something illegal were to take place (I know it didn't) she was taking a risk been there in the first place.
You don't have much faith in paddy jackson

I asked you a simple question earlier.

Would your advice to this young woman be to behave exactly as she did, again?

What qualifies me to give that woman any advice. If she asked I would tell her to be careful use good judgement, but the vast majority of young men are not dangerous.
If she finds herself in an abusive relationship where a lot of rapes occur then seek help to get out as quickly as possible.
This woman is young so when she gets over this I hope she has good nights out in the future and meets nice fellas that dont seem.to have a obsession with spit roasting.
That would be my advice

Conor Murray and Simon Zebo were embarrassed by a certain video.

I'd imagine they're very glad it exists now.

joe40 wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction.
You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to.
In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events.
Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona.
I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women.
If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.

It is heartening to finally see some acceptance of the context-sensitive nature of private messages. I have been saying this consistently from the start.

The context of the messages were that, on the evidence / facts and the conclusion of a court of law, a girl had drunken group sex with the men involved. The court's conclusion is that, on a legal basis, these men did absolutely nothing wrong. The conversation on Whatsapp thus took place in a context where, as far as those guys were aware -- the girl was upset and embarrassed. It does not seem apparent that any of them who sent, not least Craig Gilroy, had any reason to believe at that time that this girl was under the impression that she had been raped. Not just taken advantage of -- not just treated questionably -- not just objectifed --- not just feeling upset over a regrettable sexual encounter--- but raped (rape being one of the most grievous criminal offences of course with a potential life sentence). Had they been aware of this context then their recanting of the night's events may have been somewhat more solemn.

This is not an admirable way to treat someone. But we were not there. The messages don't stand as a compelling and definitive indication of those guys' views on gender equality or the value of women or that they believe that rape is funny. But a large section of the population has jumped on the Black n' White Bandwagon and called for heads to roll -- but all the while seemingly reckless in ignoring the implications for the freedom of expression and individual privacy. If you were to use the word 'n*gger' in a message it may or may not be an indication of your views but I for one certainly would not find it to be definitively indicative. If you used the word 'n*gger' in a Whatsapp message I would not just presume 'OK you are undoubtedly a racist and you should be sacked from your job'. You may be someone who believes strongly in racial equality and have people you care about or friends who are black and thus the word 'n*gger' has become so meaningless to you that you use it in a tasteless joke or sentence among your private circle with no intent to offend. One can argue it's a good thing -- and you can see how many in the African American community for instance have reclaimed the word 'n*gger' as a term of greeting or friendship -- or to use the example I used earlier so that I am not accused of presumptuousness -- how Fenian / Taig are words which are now so meaningless to me as an Irish Catholic that I don't presume anyone who uses them is automatically sectarian and deserving of dismissal and public shaming.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

What qualifies me to give that woman any advice. If she asked I would tell her to be careful use good judgement, but the vast majority of young men are not dangerous.
If she finds herself in an abusive relationship where a lot of rapes occur then seek help to get out as quickly as possible.
This woman is young so when she gets over this I hope she has good nights out in the future and meets nice fellas that dont seem.to have a obsession with spit roasting.
That would be my advice

Hypothetically, imagine she is your daughter.

Would you advise her to repeat the behaviour that led up to the events in the house of P. Jackson.

Simple question.

My daughter - no definitely not.

I just remembered Geordan Murphy played for Ireland despite never playing for a provincial side. How did that come about? Maybe Jackson could continue in green after all.

Edit. The flanker Easterby aswell did it (Simon?)

ArthurDayne wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Don't take this the wrong way but you write very long posts so I may have misinterpreted. You gave a list of hypothetical laws which I very clearly said I would disagree. You then seemed to imply that my disagreeing with you hypothetical laws was a contradiction.
You then spoke of a new world where all private communication would be monitored. That is what I was responding to.
In terms of content of private messages I fully accept people self censor all the time the way you talk in a work environment isvery different from a social setting with close friends. I have made jokes comments with friends that I would never say publicly. I think we all have that is a given. One of those jokes taken out of context could look very bad. The issue in this case was context. It wasn't the messages themselves it was the messages combined with actual events.
Also our private messages are a reflection of our true selves maybe a more accurate reflection than our public persona.
I in no way feel morally superior, plenty of poor language and dodgy jokes have been said but I have yet to use the word "sluts" to describe women.
If I were to use the word "****" ,in a private message would this not be any indication of my attitude towards black people in your mind. Even if the message was private.

It is heartening to finally see some acceptance of the context-sensitive nature of private messages. I have been saying this consistently from the start.

The context of the messages were that, on the evidence / facts and the conclusion of a court of law, a girl had drunken group sex with the men involved. The court's conclusion is that, on a legal basis, these men did absolutely nothing wrong. The conversation on Whatsapp thus took place in a context where, as far as those guys were aware -- the girl was upset and embarrassed. It does not seem apparent that any of them who sent, not least Craig Gilroy, had any reason to believe at that time that this girl was under the impression that she had been raped. Not just taken advantage of -- not just treated questionably -- not just objectifed --- not just feeling upset over a regrettable sexual encounter--- but raped (rape being one of the most grievous criminal offences of course with a potential life sentence). Had they been aware of this context then their recanting of the night's events may have been somewhat more solemn.

This is not an admirable way to treat someone. But we were not there. The messages don't stand as a compelling and definitive indication of those guys' views on gender equality or the value of women or that they believe that rape is funny. But a large section of the population has jumped on the Black n' White Bandwagon and called for heads to roll -- but all the while seemingly reckless in ignoring the implications for the freedom of expression and individual privacy. If you were to use the word 'n*gger' in a message it may or may not be an indication of your views but I for one certainly would not find it to be definitively indicative. If you used the word 'n*gger' in a Whatsapp message I would not just presume 'OK you are undoubtedly a racist and you should be sacked from your job'. You may be someone who believes strongly in racial equality and have people you care about or friends who are black and thus the word 'n*gger' has become so meaningless to you that you use it in a tasteless joke or sentence among your private circle with no intent to offend. One can argue it's a good thing -- and you can see how many in the African American community for instance have reclaimed the word 'n*gger' as a term of greeting or friendship -- or to use the example I used earlier so that I am not accused of presumptuousness -- how Fenian / Taig are words which are now so meaningless to me as an Irish Catholic that I don't presume anyone who uses them is automatically sectarian and deserving of dismissal and public shaming.

Context nature of private messages is well accepted, it is not a difficult concept.
The court case found the men innocent of the very specific charges against, it made no ruling at all on apart from that.
The men's own apology to their credit acknowledged their wrongdoing.
We all have complex personalities, but how we behave both in public and private are indicators of that personality.

On a separate note please understand the importance of brevity

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Ive a suspicion their claim of being "top shaggers" was made toungue in cheek, and as part of their childish and immature "bants". I seriously doubt anyone thinks they are in fact a top shagger, particulary when appraising anothers performance.

(Did you ever think the girl in fact got better value, two top rugby players in the same session? The lads after all got 1/2 a share in the same girl).

If nothing else maybe girls will stop throwing themselves at these guys and devaluing their productso cheaply.

Jesus Christ...

Maybe Rory should have tried to explain that to her in the cab ride home!!!