PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Consent at any time - like withdrawing it the next morning ? A week later ? A month ? There are advocates for that. And they are idiots.
retro:electro wrote: » Verbatim quote in her closing statement:“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”
SterlingArcher wrote: » Guy texts girl hey, I'm going tk wear my black leather pants with your gonna get it on them next time we meet up, he tells her she can take them off with her teeth. They meet it goes south for what ever reason, ends up in court. You think when the text is read out as evidence, that whether or not the guy wore that underware has no bearing in the case whatsoever. Or can you dismiss it as clothing choice is irrelevant. Again what was the context in this case.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » In other words "She was asking for it"
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Selective quoting to make one's point is highly suspect.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » Yeah his choice to wear underwear or not means nothing. His choice to wear leather pants means nothing(it might mean he makes terrible fashion choices, unless he has the ass and legs to pull them off, but it means nothing in terms of if they will have sex or not, or if they should expect sex or not). The only clothes that say anything are uniforms and the only things they say are "I belong to x organisation"
Hurrache wrote: » Guys wearing military boots and combats should be shot on sight, only explanation for their clothing is they're about to shoot a bunch of people.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’ll have to remember to tell anyone that in future when I’m in a shop and have people coming up to me asking where’s the loaves of bread, or where’s something else they’re looking for, and then being surprised when I tell them I don’t work there. I don’t wear a uniform btw, ever.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » any point up until the act itself. She can even withdraw consent during the act.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » And I'd agree - but not withdrawing up to or during but after, and in retrospect, is what I will always continue to have a problem with.
Captain Obvious wrote: » To be honest, whatever about the thing that was said, if the jury accepted it as a valid argument that may be indicative of a bigger issue.
blue note wrote: » Where have you seen the reactions of people thinking she was a brazen hussy for wearing that underwear? I've heard people say that othersother have had this reaction, but I haven't actually seen anyone react like that myself. Any link to someone saying anything like that?
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » That's quite a tangent!
Wabbit Ears wrote: » TBH The barrister in this case deserves a proper punch in the fcuking face. No one deserves to be raped because of what cacks they wear, but saying someone perhaps did deserve to be raped because of it does warrant a free shot right in the kisser. No hit backs.
retro:electro wrote: » I think most rational minded people would have a problem with that
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » To some, pass laws so that women who report rape are automatically believed until evidence (that you're not allowed to produce) clears you.
rtgdfd wrote: » Stuff of Nightmares that Harlot holding up knickers. Seen the protesters on the street earlier, with all their socialist clobber and flags on them. Genuine question. Do any of these protestors have jobs?. Why can't they accept the decision of the jury?. Pure fascism as far as I'm concerned to ignore the jury and presume guilt.
rtgdfd wrote: » Why can't they accept the decision of the jury?. Pure fascism as far as I'm concerned to ignore the jury and presume guilt.
vonlars wrote: » That's probably why the legislation clearly states before or during. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html The notion of withdrawing after is ridiculous and I don't see anyone advocating for that.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Nobody said anyone perhaps did deserve to be raped.
retro:electro wrote: » I think most people are protesting against the comment, not the verdict. If the comments weren’t so outrageously offensive they would never have been made public and no one would be any the wiser about the case. The case and the verdict are irrelevant here really, it’s the comment and the implication that has upset people.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It’s not. It’s directly related to your point that the only clothes that say anything are uniforms and the only things they say are "I belong to x organisation". That’s simply not true. It may well be true from your perspective, but objectively, it’s simply not a statement of fact. People make assumptions about other people all the time based upon what they’re wearing. They may be wrong in their assumptions, but that comes after your point that the way a person is dressed or what they’re wearing doesn’t say anything about them to other people who are not them.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Rosemary McCabe's article 15 years on springs to mind.
Bigbagofcans wrote: » Not everyone works 9-5, they could have had a day off, they're students. You're missing the whole point of it. They're protesting against clothing being used as consent.
