Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The Ulster taxpayer, after their police force found insufficient evidence and recommended no prosecution, a recommendation subsequently ignored, should pick up innocent Paddy's tab!

More spoof....keep it coming this is hilarious!!

facehugger99 wrote: »

That's not how it works.

500k the bold Paddy spent. Will be lucky to get even a small percentage of it back.

He'll be a few years playing in France to break even and that's before you consider all the losses he will suffer due to the toxicity of his 'brand'.

Tough lesson for him to learn - hopefully other young men will take note and learn some lessons from this too.

And don’t forget the damage when that binding UN resolution comes through,,,,,

mfceiling wrote: »

Is that like ALL men in Ireland?
Every single one of them?

I'd say they've dodged a bullet.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Doesn't Ireland's 5% rape conviction rate give us a big concern also?

Not surprising given some of the nonsense cases we see before the courts.

It's always assumed that because there is a low conviction rate, that something is wrong with the justice system and needs to be remedied to make it higher, but why automatically think that. Surely the focus should be on only bringing cases to court that have a good chance of being proven. Do that and without question the conviction rate would rise.

One retired judge said on the issue of low conviction rates:

"It is an inevitable fact of it being one person's word against another, and the burden of proof being that you have to be sure before you convict.

"I will also say, and I will be pilloried for saying so, but the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk.

"I'm not saying it's right to rape a drunken woman, I'm not saying for a moment that it's allowable to take advantage of a drunken woman.

"But a jury in a position where they've got a woman who says 'I was absolutely off my head, I can't really remember what I was doing, I can't remember what I said, I can't remember if I consented or not but I know I wouldn't have done'.

I mean when a jury is faced with something like that, how are they supposed to react?"

And I think she makes a good point. I'd like to see the stats on how many trials that don't result in a conviction involve both parties having consumed large amounts of alcohol. As the the judge suggests, it's a tall order tasking a jury with the responsibility of deciding if one person has raped the other when both of them have been drunk. Makes the low conviction rate perfectly understandably when you consider that they need to be sure beyond reasonable doubt.

sporina wrote: »

you asked about messages that Jackson sent in a previous post

he obviously sent inappropriate messages if he is apologizing for same

And you decided to quote the entire post, most of which was completely unrelated? You also did not show me the messages from Jackson. I believe there was one and only one. The apology was already discussed and the reasons it was released, so I won’t get into that again other than to say the mob needed appeasing.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

How would Olding know anything on: eight cans of Carlsberg beer, four pints of Guinness, two gins, five vodka and lemonades and three shots of tequila and Sambuca.

Apples...your back....and still refusing to answer the questions I have put to you regarding your hypocratic posts between this thread and the Donegal thread where a woman is suing the estate of a dead family. Money which belongs to the sole surviving 2 year old girl.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

They have launched a review into all sexual assault trials in Ireland.

Great. Maybe the conviction rates will rise dramatically when they realise they are bringing forward weak cases where there is almost no prospect of a conviction and where the likelihood the allegation was false.

Squatter wrote: »

Indeed. The innocent Ulster taxpayers should pick up Paddy's tab.

Do you reckon that they should also have to pay for Paddy's father's £1,000 car parking bill?

Jacksons father wasn’t on trial. He can pay for his own parking. However, the tax payer in Ulster might make some noise and force some change. Innocent people should not have to pay a cent. The state should be paying for bringing forward weak ass cases which are going to result in an acquittal.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I like men...outside Ireland. Very happy where I am right now

And yet you say you insisted on waiting outside your colleagues apartment, presumably because he might have raped you. Sounds like you’re happy alright.

meeeeh wrote: »

If someone on the top of Kinnahan clan goes before the courts, armed with team of top solicitors and gets off on a procedural mistake, the state should cover his legal cost?

I don't care if part of Paddy Jackson's cists are covered but it should be capped at minimum legal fees not at what you pay for top solicitors.

If the prosecution is armed with a strong team, then so too should the defence be. A free legal aid type team is not acceptable. if the prosecution has a strong case and gets a conviction, the state pays no fees for the defence. if they bring a weak case which fails, then it pays. This would discourage weak cases being brought forward and would result in higher conviction rates. win-win.

I also would be in favour of a convicted person being billed for the prosecution costs and where they cant afford it, they can work off the debt to society in other ways.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Not for the feminazi brigade unfortunately - I started a thread about this when it happened and the reaction was predominantly ‘she’s victim blaming’

As a woman I see nothing wrong with teaching our daughters to be careful where you go and whom you go with on a night and that getting so drunk you don’t know yourself whether you consented or not is not a good idea.

I also see nothing wrong with teaching them to take responsibility for their own choices instead of putting all the onus on men.

And as far as I know girls are already taught that and sexual violence still happens. Maybe we should lock the girls home, so they won't be able to ignore the advice.

Or maybe just maybe we should also teach people that sexual violence is simply not acceptable even if a girl dressed proactively, even if someone is totally drunk and even if someone goes with you to your house.

I have no doubt there are false rape allegations when someone is completely drunk and possibly cheats or is just remorseful next morning. Men could be victims of those allegations, so what should we advise them? Not to drink and impare their judgement, not to look attractive, to accept the responsibility for finding themselves in that situation...

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I noticed today that I did something different because of this thread. My colleague asked to go for a walk with me today, to a river.

On the way he asked to stop at his appartment to pick up something. I said, ok, I will wait for you outside. And I did.

I realise, especially after reading some of the comments on this thread, "she shouldnt have gone to his house" etc., that I am not safe going into a man's appartment, and that I must protect myself.

All of this definitely happened.

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what's happened here. People seem to think that by sacking them, the IRFU is saying they're guilty of rape after the court found them not guilty. That's not the case.

What a lot of people seem to have trouble with getting their heads around is that just because you aren't guilty of rape, doesn't mean you're not guilty of anything else. You don't need to be convicted of a crime for your employer to find grounds for dismissal.

Their conduct was appalling and they've admitted as much in their statements after the case. That's why they were let go.

It is disturbing that non-criminal private behaviour outside their job can result in someone losing their job.

skearnsot wrote: »

I would also like to say that the way young women dress (or forget to dress) is absolutely appalling! I’m NOT SAYING THEY ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE before the feminazi brigade start spewing about rights and equality etc BUUUUUUT if they are going out with their wares on display like it or not they’re sending a message albeit unconsciously!! If men went out so scantily clad one thinks they’d be done for indecent exposure.

Gonna have to disagree here. I abhor these radical feminist as much as the next person but women should be allowed to wear whatever they want. You can personally find it horrid or classless but basically saying they’re sending out a “come and get me” message isn’t right. If anyone looks at a girl and thinks that, the problem is within themselves. Now I’ve often looked at a girl in a busty or tight outfit and thought DAMN!!!! but never did I think oh she’s looking for it off me or anyone else. She might be a very confident and proud of her image, she might be the opposite and trying to make up for low esteem, she might enjoy attention or she might just bloody like the clothes but I don’t agree with that “sending a message” idea ,as pertains to the subject matter of this thread. What someone is wearing is never an excuse for unwanted touching or comments to them. You can obviously say to your mate “ah the hack of your one there” but nothing gives anyone the right to say something actually to the girl just because she’s wearing whatever.

Omackeral wrote: »

Gonna have to disagree here. I abhor these radical feminist as much as the next person but women should be allowed to wear whatever they want. You can personally find it horrid or classless but basically saying they’re sending out a “come and get me” message isn’t right. If anyone looks at a girl and thinks that, the problem is within themselves. Now I’ve often looked at a girl in a busty or tight outfit and thought DAMN!!!! but never did I think oh she’s looking for it off me or anyone else. She might be a very confident and proud of her image, she might be the opposite and trying to make up for low esteem, she might enjoy attention or she might just bloody like the clothes but I don’t agree with that “sending a message” idea ,as pertains to the subject matter of this thread. What someone is wearing is never an excuse for unwanted touching or comments to them. You can obviously say to your mate “ah the hack of your one there” but nothing gives anyone the right to say something actually to the girl just because she’s wearing whatever.

This is absolutely correct. In fact, I had quite a novel-scenario debate on Friday night with my flatmate -- a mid 20s French girl with a fairly liberal view on sex -- where she described some very scantily-clad girls stumbling down Camden Street as 'sluts'. I challenged her on it, pointing out that all things are relative and, from the perspective of (say) a fundamentalist Muslim in a Sharia law-based society, pretty much all Irish women dress like 'sluts' if they expose any skin at all!

We really really need to move away from the conversation on what women wear. As I have said before on this thread, wearing a miniskirt and a boob tube is not an act of direct self-endangerment and there is therefore no reason for any woman to suppress her sense of fashion, even if the perceived suggestion of her outfit is that she is sexually promiscuous. It is her right and perfectly in line with the values of our increasingly progressive country to dress as she wants within the law.

skearnsot wrote: »

I’m NOT SAYING THEY ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE before the feminazi brigade start spewing about rights and equality etc BUUUUUUT

What an appalling attitude.

Ironically it's more insulting to men than to women.

Hopefully it's just trolling. Bit embarrassing that people have thanked this post though.

skearnsot wrote: »

fact of life we all give off signals -

Would that be the 'rape me ' signal?

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what's happened here. People seem to think that by sacking them, the IRFU is saying they're guilty of rape after the court found them not guilty. That's not the case.

I don't believe anyone has suggested the IRFU sacking them is any indication of a belief in guilt. It is very clear the IRFU sacked them because of the mob mentality and the risk of sponsor loss.

Their conduct was appalling and they've admitted as much in their statements after the case. That's why they were let go.

People seem to be forgetting that PJ sent a single message, along the lines of "there was plenty of spit". Hardly material worthy of the condemnation aimed primarily at him. Oldings messages were a bit more telling and came across as extremely immature. Gilroys were the worst.....and he only got a suspension. Sound like justice?

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh come on you will get a local druggie who gets convicted for peddling drugs and petty theft to pay the bill for prosecution? I'd like to see that.

Also if state has to pay for top defence it will rack up legal fees even more, do you want your taxes to pay for an army of Kinnahan solicitors?

I believe I already covered that when I said

goz83 wrote: »

I also would be in favour of a convicted person being billed for the prosecution costs and where they cant afford it, they can work off the debt to society in other ways.