Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Faugheen wrote: »

How am I undermining the defence?

How was the idea them getting Best to go to a trial undermining them?

How were any of the facts that she was bleeding and hysterical undermining the defence?

How are they sensationalist? We have three members of the defence saying she was upset, and we have a photograph of her blood on his bed. No sensationalism there.

I am absolutely allowed to question the character of Jackson and Olding based on the events of the night in question. I do so by looking at facts and I form an opinion based on those facts. All of my opinions are based on the evidence that was presented in court.

Have I said anywhere in the thread that my opinion is the right one? No.

Do I demonstrate my opinion as fact? No.

Do you? Yes.

Now who is undermining who?

An opinion formed on sensationalised 'facts' such as a bed 'COVERED in HER blood'.

Go on outta that.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Oh dear, you really don't like getting a woman's pov do you.

You were the one who made the sexist insinuation that, simply because I am a man, my opinions on this matter are invalid or less valuable to you.

That makes you a hypocrite.

You could have at least attempted to defend your use of the term 'mansplaining' but instead have chosen the easy way out with a petty swipe. I hope we can debate again sometime without you telling me that my gender renders my opinions of lesser worth to you. Instead, I can only extrapolate that you're somewhat irked at having your hypocrisy called out and thrown back at you.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

You could have at least attempted to defend your use of the term 'mansplaining' but instead have chosen the easy way out with a petty swipe. I hope we can debate again sometime without you telling me that my gender renders my opinions of lesser worth to you.

So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel?

meeeeh wrote: »

So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel?

My apologies -- I don't understand what you're asking me there, or why. Would you mind elaborating and I'd be happy to hopefully give you a more fulfilled answer?

Yeah_Right wrote: »

meeeeh wrote: »

So tell me how does a woman with her life experience as a woman feel being called a slut. And how should she feel?

I know you weren't asking me but if you were, I would need more info.
Who is calling her a slut?
What is the context of the conversation?
Once I know that then I would be able to determine whether she should give a **** or not.

You don't get to determine that. She does.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You were saying 2 yrs away from Ireland and they've lost sharpness. I'm saying they'd be playing provincial equivalent rugby..

The point was around Jackson representing Ireland again (I suspect it’s a bit of a moot point for Olding tbh). You could apply it to Ulster too though, keep them “suspended” till end of season. Neither would be ready for match intensity straight away in all likelihood so it’s an approach that gives everyone something

meeeeh wrote: »

You got very uppity around statement that you have no clue what woman feels when she is called a slut. I don't like term mansplainng but being told constantly here how being called slut is not disrespectful, like it's some sort of a term of endearment is a bit tiring.

I am just giving you a chance how woman with her experiences as woman should feel being called a slut. I wouldn'twant to hurt your feelings by telling you don't have a clue as a man. That would be sexist.

Honestly, I will really have to go back and read my previous posts to identify where along the line I have been dictating to people how they should and should not feel about being called a slut or any other word for that matter. Even at that, when did I ever say that the word slut was not disrespectful ? All I have said, consistently, is that the use of bad language (most especially of all in private conversation) is highly context-sensitive and we have to be careful about using people's private statements as being definitive reflections of their views and opinions.

For fear of being called presumptuous, and in accordance with Mrsmum's logic that I simply could never hope to understand women, perhaps I can use a personal example from a different type of discrimination. I grew up in the North and right from early childhood have experience of being subjected to sectarian slurs. 'Fenian c*nt / Kill all Taigs smeared on a wall beside my primary school / walking past towering bonfires with all my cultural emblems engulfed in flames -- all in a context of political violence and killing. I lived in a majority Loyalist town and there was very little I could do about it. Did I like it if someone drove past and shouted 'Fenian c*nt' as I walked down the street? No. Did it hurt or make me feel angry? Yes.

I worked in a shop in the town alongside people from Protestant/Unionist backgrounds. We called eachother Fenians and Huns and all sorts -- it was a laugh. Do I have any doubt that some of those Unionist guys had ever used the term 'Fenian' among their own Unionist friends? Of course not. But these guys also hung out with Catholics / Nationalists, some had girlfriends from 'the other side'. These guys were not sectarian -- views had softened even if the divisive legacy of sectarianism lingered.

So what I am saying here is that the use of derogatory language is incredibly nuanced and context-sensitive from person-to-person. A random guy shouting 'Fenian c*nt' directly at me on the street would hurt me personally more than someone using the term in a Whatsapp group. I wouldn't just automatically assume that someone who makes a sectarian joke about me on some Whatsapp group behind my back is automatically a sectarian person who shoudl be cast from their job and their name dragged through the mud. I say 'Hun' all the time but on a serious level I couldn't care less if someone is a Protestant or a Unionist!

I'm not dictating to anyone on how they should feel -- nor am I saying that everyone should be like me. I am merely imploring people not to take the private comments that people make as being indicative of their true serious views. Imagine we enforced a world like that? A Dystopia of linguistic stringency where our every word at the dinner table or the pub is audited, scrutinised and interpreted as being utterly and completely indicative of what we believe and how we think people should be treated.

Is that the world you want? If not, then ask yourself why not. Are we to live in a world where everyone is crucified at the altar of unobtainable moral perfection ?

Faugheen wrote: »

There was blood on his bed. Yes or No?

The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is.

Sure why not say there was 25 men there, and that she was tied to the bed.

The bed was NOT covered in her blood.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I think we will all have to accept there was some blood on the sheets - how much I don’t know.

But that doesn’t make it rape.

There was blood. But the bed was not covered in her blood.
Those who pretend to accept the verdict will sensationalise the facts in order to undermine it if you let them away with it.

meeeeh wrote: »

I never said how men should feel when called misogynus, I said the word by itself is not a slur. That has nothing to do with my interpretation, that is dictionary definition.

As per a like I posted earlier the meaning of the word has been (quite deliberately) changed in recent years. It is most definitely used as a slur

meeeeh wrote: »

I get you and I have no problem with them working in some anonymous job but they are celebrities. We don't know them, except by their statements and actions. And they don't look good, they maybe didn't mean anything bad personally but we are not dealing with their intimate personality, we only have the image they project publicly. They became a symbol of something. Not letting them play might unfair to them but letting them play might be hurtful to a whole bigger group of people. It would also create impression that verbally abusing women is ok.

Ok well let's apply your argument to its logical conclusion. The only way to effectively enforce your view that celebrities be subject to a different law than everyone else when it comes to their private life is to actually have a law. Let's call this hypothetical law the Celebrity Act 2018.

The Celebrity Act 2018 stipulates:

"1. All people of public renown (with 'of renown' to be determined via the court's interpretation) shall be subject to the rule that all of their private statements must at all times be respectful, in line with public morality and inoffensive to the public or a section of the public.

2. Those who breach this Act at any stage of their life shall have committed an offence and shall be automatically deprived of their employment and their right to seek employment in that industry indefinitely"

So there you go. Now you have your opinion cemented in law and all those in positions of 'celebrity' and public renown are now subject to a legal framework where they must conform to morality at all times. Yes it's scary 'Police State' dictatorship kind of stuff. But morality is saved, and celebrities shall never offend anyone again . . . and if they do they shall suffer the consequences.

I appreciate the above example is somewhat ham-fisted (statutory drafting is not my forte) but would you like to see a law like that being implemented? If you would, then explain why. If not, then why would you not?

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It’s the 21st Century - surely we modern women are strong enough not be severely offended by men’s drunken antics and silly banter? Sure we engage in the exact same behaviors ourselves.

You don't want women to be porcelain dolls, I think they shouldn't be a pushover.

tretorn wrote: »

Faugheen and a few more like him dont care whose blood it was.

They are implying the woman was left a bloody mess after the threesome which means great force was used on her.

They are raging the all the blood found doesnt belong to the woman who alleged rape but the fact that its there is enough to paint Jackson as somebody who regularly injures women in his house.

I really, really hope Faugheen is never called for jury service involving any man accused of any crime whatsoever and particularly not the crime of rape. Faugheen not only would ignore factual evidence, he or she would make up evidence in order to justify themselves and everyone else on the jury to send an innocent person to jail.

Faugheen is a very dangerous individual and its frightening that the PSNI and the PPS could bring such a ridiculous case, you would like to think the PPS would spot a case full of holes and thereby prevent the like of faugheen getting to pass judgment on anyone.

There are none so blind as though who wont see.

Indeed....

We saw this week details that the defence successfully argued should not be presented to the jury...there were literally dozens of other legal arguments that the defence made in an attempt to get the judge to direct the jury to acquit.

See that is the job of the defence, normally one barrister and maybe one other solicitor/junior counsel....in this case there was a legal team of 12!!!!!! 12, including 4 barristers....who have argued every minute detail in this case in an attempt to collapse the trial...before the case made it to court it was the object of a number of different motions....

If you think this case should never have gone court you must believe that there was some other dark force behind it...requiring you to jump through yet another hoop in the desperate attempt to believe the lads were hard done by...

But like you correctly said...there is none so blind as those who cannot see!