The ulster rugby trial

[Tony Baloney]

This thread had really increased my ignore list.

How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers

Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.

[Orior]

Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands

Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

Not mine son, but many others.

[Dire Ear]

This thread had really increased my ignore list.

How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers

Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.

Thank you

[GetOverTheBar]

This thread had really increased my ignore list.

How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers

Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.

[Franko]

Human nature being what it is, if the jury don't believe the defendants it will make a conviction more likely. That being said they will be reminded umpteen times over the next few weeks that the defendants must have the benefit of the doubt and don't have to be believed and that even if they think the defendants are lying that in and of itself is not enough for them to convict. That will also be drummed into them.

Strangely and I seem to be in the minority here but I actually think the texts and WhatsApp help the defendants to a degree because I would imagine the defence will paint them as conversations of fellas who didn't belief what had happened the night before was non consensual. I would have been far more corncerned about them if I was a defendant if they said things like'we better get our stories straight' or 'everyone say she consented'. Again I caveat this post with not having seen all the evidence.

That was my initial thoughts as well. I think Harrison refers to the complainant saying it was not consensual but I imagine the defence will try to paint the picture that it was regret after the fact as per Olding's statement. Its a complete mess and I have no idea what way this  should or will go.

I do think it actually strengthens the case for anonymity for all participants. If the defendants had not been named there would be limited interest in the case. In the scenario where the guys are found not guilty that's only fair. But I also think it would help the other party as there would be limited media interest in who the complainant was. As it stands now I think it is likely that her name would  get out which helps no-one. And if it a guilty verdict, I would imagine its easier to maintain that anonymity for her (should she decide) because there has not been such media attention. I know there is an argument that other victims/witnesses  are more likely to come forward if the accused is named etc but on balance i think it would be better to have all this out of the media.

When there is a systematic and societal bias against rape victims even coming forward I have little issue with names being made public once charged. If the police and the state didn't beleive a rape happened it wouldn't reach that point to begin with. It again goes without saying that a not guilty verdict does not equal innocence or a right to pick up their lives as if nothing occurred.

I am amused by the hand wringing in this thread over them being named despite it being common in many other types of cases. Do you realise the bias you're propigating here?

You see this is where you let yourself down and expose the fact that you actually couldn't give a flying fcuk about the alleged victim here.  Anyone with half a brain would know that this case wouldn't have been given a second glance by the media if the defendants hadn't been such high profile people.

That being the case, this girl would have been spared the torture of having read and listen to the most intimate discussions about her being conducted on the front page of every newspaper and being the headline story in every news bulletin.  This trial and the associated reporting also has to have planted a seed of doubt into the mind of anyone thinking of coming forward in similar circumstances.

Of course, the defendants would have also been spared being vilified by every halfwit attention seeker in the street before being convicted of any wrongdoing.  And we all know someone in that bracket.

The victim has anonymity so this is a very bizarre post in a lot of ways.

The suggestion that they should have had their identifies protected particularly because they were well known and it would create a fuss might be the most incredible angle of the lot, though.

I won't hold my breath here because you've shown innumerable times that you run away from difficult questions but anyway...

Could you outline exactly what is bizarre in this?  Just because she's anonymous to the general public doesn't mean she doesn't watch the news/go online/see newspapers.  They are all reporting on this and they are all reporting the same intimate, graphic details.  This is not to mention the fact that she's not really anonymous at all.  Anyone who has left the house in the past few weeks will have heard this girl's name.

Your second line is another typical straw man.  That's not what I suggested, in any way.  I suggested that everyone should be anonymous, which would provide a level of protection to all concerned.  In this case more than most.  You don't seem to have understood this simple concept, which is embarrassing for you.  But, in fairness, you don't seem to embarrass that easily.

[Asal Mor]

This thread had really increased my ignore list.

How can I get this function for posters?  Cheers

Go Profile > Modify Profile and you'll be allowed to Edit Ignore List. Add magpie seanie and Syferus, hit Save and Bob's your uncle.

Brilliant Tony.

[Asal Mor]

Sexual assault? Voluntarily sleeping with a producer to get a part in a movie? Try taking that one to court and see how it goes.

There were plenty who Weinstein did genuinely assault and that's a different matter though I know you well enough at this stage to know you're incapable of engaging your brain and analysing different cases on their own merits.

Did you read that link I posted?

Weinstein was one vindictive, petty hoor of an excuse of a man. Anyone, especially young aspiring actresses who refused his advances were as good as toast in Hollywood.

Had they a choice? Yes, but the fact that he was allowed to get away with his actions for so long speaks volumes for the spivs in Hollywood and that goes for some of the "me too" brigade who came out after Weinstein was on the ropes thanks to some of the braver women, especially those who had gotten a profile where they would be believed and not bought off.

My point was never about defending Weinstein who is a rapist, abuser and an exploiter.

Nrico rightly mentioned Rose Mcgowan. She was in the middle of negotiating another payoff from Weinstein (her third maybe?) to keep quiet when the ny times broke the story and then she went public as she knew the hush money wouldn't be coming. She pushed the #rosearmy hashtag and tried to portray herself as an icon for sex abuse victims. This despite her previously having worked for convicted child rapist Vic Salva and saying "I still don't really understand the whole story or history there, and I'd rather not, because it's not really my business. But he's an incredibly sweet and gentle man" when asked about his convictions. She was happy to pose for photos on red carpets with Harvey before the story went public too.

So forgive me for being cynical about some "victims".

I agree with all of your post about Weinstein but I stand over my earlier posts about some of the "victims" who have attached themselves to the MeToo campaign. They knew the score, they did well out of it and they'd do the same again.

[Asal Mor]

Great points Franko. Especially that Syf's inability to see how much better off the alleged victim would be if this trial was kept under wraps through anonymity for all parties, shows he doesn't give a fcuk about the girl in spite of all his ranting.

[LeoMc]

Come on lads lets not pretend you havent bought the missus something with a view towards a bit of filth as repayment.

As someone else pointed out earlier with the definition of rape, there is a large percentage of husbands who could be prosecuted for raping their wives.

And wives raping their husbands

Not sure what goes on in your bedroom


Rape

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B)
(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

Not mine son, but many others.

I was addressing MR2s comment.

[imtommygunn]

On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

[Asal Mor]

On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

Cheers Tommy. Like Johnny you're a good poster and I'd always take your points of view on board, but there are a lot of tosspots out there who will try to shout me down with the mindless "victim blaming" label when I'm just expressing an opinion and I feel once someone identifies themselves as a victim they are immune to questioning in the eyes of the online lynch mob. I didn't agree with George Hook's comments about personal responsibility in the particular case he was commenting on for example but I thought the reaction and him losing his job was crazy.

[Syferus]

On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

[Milltown Row2]

On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing by the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Syferus who really gives a f**k what you think? You've absolutely no clue. But hey away ya go

[Asal Mor]

On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Change is fine but why the need to lynch and try to destroy people (like George Hook and Rory Best) for little or no reason, which has been a feature of this movement?

Why the inability to see the self-serving hypocrisy of someone like Rose McGowan and immediately shout "victim blaming" (as you did when I previously mentioned McGowan's bullshit) when anyone questions anything to do with this movement for change?

[imtommygunn]

On the rose mcgowan point asal my wife regularly gives off to me about her and how her situation panned out. On her i think you possibly aren't too far wrong. On a lot of others not so sure but she strikes as someone who has manipulated the situation .

It seems any angle no matter how meaningless is seized upon by a segement of this thread to try to explain away holding onto predjuices and old ways of thinking. I've not read enough of your posts to say that's what you're doing but the person you're replying to most certainly is.

Sexual asssault of women is at epidemic levels and has been for as long as there has been human civilisation. It's only in the last 100 years that people have even woke up slightly to the fundamental sexism that society is built upon.

It may take a few of the older generations dying off and reaching the ages at which they have to relinquish power for the message that younger people are already getting loud and clear to be fully accepted.

Make no mistake, people like Asal Mor and MR2 are on the wrong side of history. Change will happen no matter much they wish it not to.

Tell me this .... Do you read any posts objectively and consider them in their entireity or just see something in the post and go like a red rag to a bull claiming that the poster is as big a monster as there is? You are as guilty as anyone of seizing upon things.

Also the younger person comment.... Do you represent the entireity of younger people? You should also consider most involved in this case are younger people.

Everything is loaded against the woman, the system sucks etc etc I fully get that so in your immense amounts of bullshit, and there are immense amounts, you actually have some valid points but never help yourself.

I have seen nothing in a single post you have made to suggest you think these guys are entitled to a fair trial. (Oh wait before you lynch me i think they are all scumbags but they do deserve a fair trial).

You are actually as bad as anyone you paint as a monster here if not worse.