Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - haranguerer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 189
General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 23, 2018, 11:21:35 AM »
I was veering towards believing the girl until I learned that she'd taken her own top off. Okay she says she was ordered to do it(would a man usually ask a girl politely to take her top off during consensual sex?) but she can't remember who ordered her to do it(imo if she'd been told to do it in a threatening way she'd remember). She also claimed that she "froze" when asked why she didn't cry out for help, but when asked/told to take her top off she did. That doesn't add up to me. Imo it looks like regret, not rape,  at this stage. The police interviews should be revealing though.
Would you not agree its possible your veering that way because you have a predetermined view of what rape is and what it looks like?  The vast majority of rapes are completely different from what we would see in a film.
Don't think so Mucker. I can accept that a girl could freeze and not struggle and my earlier posts on the thread would show I was inclined to believe her, but taking off her own top  because she was "ordered to" and yet being unable to recall which man ordered her to do so is something that doesn't add up to me at all.
If for example she had said "Olding ordered me to take my top off and I felt he was going to hurt me if I didn't" I could accept that, but to not remember and expect the jury to still accept the claim that she had done it due to intimidation and hadn't done so willingly is a huge stretch.
I would accept that there is a possibility you are right.  I would still doubt it though given the girls consistent evidence on the stand, but nevertheless that will be a factor for the jury.  I just find it odd that someone could be so adamant that the act of taking her top off, would determine if a rape took place or hadn't. Given the nature of a lot of rapes, ie nonviolent, victim compliant.

Most lads can't grasp that concept.

Compliance makes perfect sense in a threatening situation. There doesn't appear to me to have ever been the case made that the alleged victim was in fear of violence or felt threatened. Compliance in a non-threatening situation does not make sense, especially when there were numerous opportunities to ask for help, or extricate from situation.

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 23, 2018, 09:40:14 AM »
Another interesting bit from the article

"The nationalist was the most annoyed and frustrated. He was particularly angry that unionism seemed content to economically withdraw into itself and into the eastern counties of the North.

He vividly described the economic waste land that exists on the western side of a line that stretches from Coleraine, bulging out to encompassing most of Tyrone and reaching the southern most point of Fermanagh. His most insightful description was that on their side of the line they had two airports and two universities.

The other businessman was less colourful but even more interesting. Born into a unionist background and a business that straddled the Border, his thesis was that Irish unionism was on its last legs.

Because of the changing demographics he argued that all that was needed was to convince a small number of unionists that Irish unity was the future. He was adamant that the number of unionists persuadable to that opinion was growing, and that the wrong people to do the persuading was Sinn Féin.

The argument as to who are the right people to do the persuading is for another day in the not too distant future, but the substance of this businessman’s argument is being heard more often in unexpected quarters."

Pretty much bang on.  Though what I would add is that the bit in bold summarises well what's going on here right now.

"Sinn Fein are doing it all wrong" is the cry.

But people are VERY light on answers and actions when it comes to doing it the "correct" way.

I would say they're doing it pretty much right. That's not the issue though, the issue is that, given how far they have brought things, they'll never be accepted by unionists.

Nonetheless, SF will have to do the heavy lifting for another while, might as well be the lightning rod for all the unionist fury as half it, before some of the southern parties can come in, offer coalition or something else acceptable to unionists, and get the job done as a better alternative than dealing with SF. SF screwed in the moment of victory, but I guess that's politics.

General discussion / Re: Radio Ulster
« on: February 22, 2018, 08:59:15 AM »
Still miss good old Gerry Anderson - used to Tune in every morning for the hand over Nolan to Gerry slot.  Some of the calls that gerry took that were aired on the Animation show 'On The Air' were excellent.  Still can get a good few of them on youtube -

Gerry was fantastic.

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 21, 2018, 02:23:08 PM »
Redundance of petition of concern in reformed stormont meant it was pretty much guaranteed to go through anyway, no?

What words?

General discussion / Re: Silent Justice/ Internet Interceptors
« on: February 20, 2018, 08:47:17 AM »
The fact is the police have done feck all to intercept these pedophiles. The set-ups to trap the pedophiles don't appear to be that complicated. If those self-publicist morons can  trap a pedophile and come close to doing it to a legal compliant standard, then why can't the police? Let me guess, they have not the resources or the will?

How do you know they're not? Do you actually want a fb live video as proof?

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 15, 2018, 04:53:05 PM »
Heard that - he came across like a right p***k

You should let us all know - pm me if you cant broadcast it

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 15, 2018, 03:37:18 PM »

The usual utter abdication of leadership within unionism

The last line is a load of absolute horseshit tho - it wasn't the unionist people who scared off the DUP

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 15, 2018, 02:19:32 PM »
One wonders why you waste your time teaching it if you believe its a complete waste - sounds like a good way to spend the majority of your waking hours

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 15, 2018, 09:09:45 AM »

Just on equality, noteworthy that every time there are articles like this on the BBC, there are two unionist viewpoints given (Beltel and Newsletter) v 1 nationalist viewpoint (IN). BBCNI is supposed to represent the people here - yet their analysis articles are regularly skewed and propogate the notion that nationalism is being unreasonable. Part of the problem...

General discussion / Re: Arlene's bigotry shines through
« on: February 14, 2018, 04:56:41 PM »
Jesus what a bunch of w**kers up here.

Why don't both give the other what they want, and in turn they win themselves in the long run.

SF agree to DUP requests - shows unionists that theyd be accommodated in a UI
DUP agree to SF requests - shows nationalists theyre better off in UK, and SF would have nothing to complain about. Support for a UI would diminish.

SF are pushing the ILA so far unionists will despise anything Irish even more (if thats possible) than they do already. And vice versa.

I honestly think Stormont is all about the few in both parties, lining their own pockets, feeding their egos. They don't give a flying fcuk for anyone in this hellhole. But all this shite filters down from Stormont into the general population making it an intolerable cesspit for the ordinary joe.

ffs. Where have you been living your lifetime? at what point does it stop? Nationalists were supposed to have equality - do they? There not being open state-sponsored discrimination is a long way from equality, and its the least that's deserved. The ILA is the vehicle that demonstrates the DUP have no interest in equality - thats how it has gained such prominence. Wake up and look around before falling into the claptrap being repeated by unionists claiming to talk sense. This isn't supposed to be their NI any more, its supposed to belong to all of us. I can see why they find it hard to give up power they've held for decades, i fail to see how you are ignorant enough not to recognise what is really going on here.

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 13, 2018, 06:20:06 PM »
Most of what is reported are direct transcripts of what was said which wouldn't seem to leave much room for inaccuracy or interpretation though obviously we're not told every word that was said either.

I thought the underwear being shown to the court was under-reported. I only saw it on Frank Greaney's twitter feed. Can't see any justification for it. Humiliating and irrelevant , assuming it's true of course.

It seems we're all just seeing snippets, and everyone is joining the dots in their own manner. From what I saw one of the barristers was making the case that the bleeding was prior to the events in the house, and also that contrary to a claim the girl had made earlier that she wasn't wearing fake tan, there was fake tan on her clothes, this was the relevance of her clothes being shown.
I don't think this has been addressed yet.

The complainant never said she wasn't wearing fake tan, just that she was only wearing fake tan on the parts of her body that would have been visible during the night out.

‘Mr Kelly also quizzed her why there was spray tan on much of her clothes if she had only tanned the bottoms of her legs.

The complainant responded: “My top had a slit in it and I’d tanned the bits that were on show. That included my lower back as well. The point is I had not tanned my whole body. It was patchy and it looks ridiculous unless you have your clothes on.”’

Cheers sid - I wasnt trying to mislead it was a response to the relevance of her clothes. Like much of the trial there are two separate accounts.

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 13, 2018, 06:05:30 PM »
The barrister continued: “It is Mr Jackson’s case that he never had sexual intercourse with you on that night. He says he digitally penetrated you while you were having oral sex with Mr Olding. Did he have sex with you?”

Think that answers it then? Being mr Jackson’s *case* means it’s must have been mentioned already in court - his police testimony doesn’t necessarily form part of his case? So just wasn’t reported...

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 13, 2018, 04:59:22 PM »
Trying to pull a fast one to get him on the stand perhaps? It would be hearsay, wouldn't it?

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 13, 2018, 04:22:35 PM »
Aye that seems strange alright - the prosecution are talking about what the defendant claims before he has actually claimed it in court. Surely couldn't be the case?

Theres a lot of stuff going on here, woman says didn't look like rape, but apparently prosecution has been allowed to make the focus of it that it contradicts something that paddy jackson has allegedly said?!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 189