The ulster rugby trial

[Orior]

A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

Do the women in work actually speak to you?

Oh yes, but usually it is to say something like "get away from me creep"

[Syferus]

A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

Do the women in work actually speak to you?

Oh yes, but usually it is to say something like "get away from me creep"

You say that as a joke and yet your posts in this thread..

[sid waddell]

What I'm most uneasy about as regards this thread and others on the same subject I've read elsewhere is that it appears a lot of men have their own set of guidelines for how they think a woman who has been raped should behave in order for her to be believed.

These guidelines are based on nothing at all other than the holder's own ideas and prejudices.

Now I'm not using this as an argument to try and prove that the complainant in this case was raped, though I have my own views on that having followed the trial closely from the start. My problem is how some posters here and elsewhere have tried to portray reports of the complainant's reactions as proof that she could not have been raped, rather than trying to educate themselves about how women tend to react during rape.

The complainant not screaming is taken as proof she could not have been raped. So are reports that she asked Jackson to "at least use a condom". The possibility of trauma and fragmented memory are ruled out. It seems to me that "she didn't scream or cry for help" is the new "she was asking for it".   

As George Hook's abhorrent comments and the widespread support they attracted shows, a lot of men still have pretty neanderthal views about the subject.

[Orior]

A female friend of mine in work thinks that the age gap is a concern. The complainant is 18 and Jackson is 26?

Do the women in work actually speak to you?

Oh yes, but usually it is to say something like "get away from me creep"

You say that as a joke and yet your posts in this thread..

Really? Can you point out said posts chief?

[Milltown Row2]

What I'm most uneasy about as regards this thread and others on the same subject I've read elsewhere is that it appears a lot of men have their own set of guidelines for how they think a woman who has been raped should behave in order for her to be believed.

These guidelines are based on nothing at all other than the holder's own ideas and prejudices.

Now I'm not using this as an argument to try and prove that the complainant in this case was raped, though I have my own views on that having followed the trial closely from the start. My problem is how some posters here and elsewhere have tried to portray reports of the complainant's reactions as proof that she could not have been raped, rather than trying to educate themselves about how women tend to react during rape.

The complainant not screaming is taken as proof she could not have been raped. So are reports that she asked Jackson to "at least use a condom". The possibility of trauma and fragmented memory are ruled out. It seems to me that "she didn't scream or cry for help" is the new "she was asking for it".   

As George Hook's abhorrent comments and the widespread support they attracted shows, a lot of men still have pretty neanderthal views about the subject.

Generalised sweeping statements, but carry on!

People will have views based on what they have heard, end of. If the evidence all pointed towards the guys being totally innocent then people will view it on that, if all the evidence so far heard was leaning towards them being guilty then everyone would be saying they are going down for rape, as it stands all the evidence hasn't been heard and people are taking the snippets and judging it themselves on a discussion board!

Wow strange that! Different views, weird!

Some dicks even get that much carried away that I'd imagine they'd top themselves if it goes against their narrative!  The reality is completely different as they wouldn't give a toss as they have other things in their life which are far more important.

Hundreds if not thousands of rape cases go on but I've only heard of two on this board!

[Syferus]

People do not come to their view simply based on the evidence of the individual case alone like some sort of justice robot. That suggestion is totally absurd in any context nevermind one as charged as this. MR2, the only man without bias and prejudices, or is that the only one who can't see his?

Spare me.

[Main Street]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

[screenexile]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape, Syf is spot on if he wrote that.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

Is that the legal definition of consent MS?? If so then a lot of people are in trouble!! Surely something defines implied consent and personally I thought the onus is on the woman to say no or to communicate physically that she doesn't want to.

Who asks their wife every time they want to have sex?!

[HiMucker]

I could be wrong here, and I am open to correction, but I think what David is saying, is that one of the criteria to consider in a rape case, is did the defendants reasonably believe that consent was given.  Ie the IP could believe that they were raped but the perp believe that were was consent.

[Milltown Row2]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

[Syferus]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

[Milltown Row2]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Your legal background is?

[HiMucker]

For what it's worth I think Sfy has brought alot of good points to the table.  But because he is a sanctimonious..... it is affecting the discussion.  Which says alot about both parties!

Lesson here Syferus, "A man convinced against his will, will think no different still!"

[Syferus]

Syferus will of course issue a full unconditional apology if they are found not guilty.

If these lads aren't convicted it will not be from lack of evidence that they did something horrible.

if it was consensual is no big dael

Exactly. If they're not convicted it will.be because it was consensual.  A threesome mightnt be to your tastes but it's certainly not horrible on their behalves.

That's not right. They may be acquitted on the basis the jury were not convinced that the defendants knew (or more technically did not reasonably believe) that the girl wasn't consenting. If a not guilty verdict is returned we will never know which of the three criteria the jury felt wasn't proven so it must certainly doesn't follow that an acquittal means whatever happened was consensual

Contrary to what Syferus says sex and a lack of consent does not legally make it rape.

Sex without consent is rape,  it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Should it? (be so that sex without consent is rape)

Yes it should,  sex without consent is rape.

That's an argument for a different day

WTF are you on about?

The uk legal definition of

What is 'consent'?

"Consent refers to whether permission or agreement has been given by one person to another. If two people intend to engage in a sexual act, consent must be established clearly beforehand to ensure that both parties are aware, comfortable and in agreeance. If consent is not established, any sexual acts that follow may not be recognised as lawful."

May not be recognised as  lawful,  meaning it may be recognised as rape. Yes, for various reasons  it may not be recognised  as rape, it just has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that consent was not given in order for it to be recognised as rape.

I'd say he knows more on this than you, I'll go with his judgement on this before yours

Lol.

Your legal background is?

He quoted the legal definition of rape. So is he lying just like you assume the rape victim is?

[Syferus]

For what it's worth I think Sfy has brought alot of good points to the table.  But because he is a sanctimonious..... it is affecting the discussion.  Which says alot about both parties!

Lesson here Syferus, "A man convinced against his will, will think no differnt still!"

I have never expected to change what are clearly entrenched and in a lot of ways regressive attitudes towards women on this forum but I sure as hell won't let them pass without highlighting the worst offenders and shining a light on their piss-poor attempts to disguise their prejudices when called on it. And certainly not on a topic as serious as a gang rape.