The ulster rugby trial

[RedHand88]

The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

[Taylor]

Cheers RedHand.

Social Media gives some people who otherwise would be normal citizens a megphone to spout nonsense and see who can be the most upset.

[screenexile]

The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

I personally would try to follow a few people who don't share my beliefs to get a bit of perspective on things and as such there's a lot of #ibelileveher stuff on my timeline. It's very hard not to type something but as has been said if you weigh in at all you're labelled a rape apologist etc. it's just not worth it!

[general_lee]

The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

What is quite annoying for me is the presumption that everything in this case is black and white. I would follow a lot of "feminists" on twitter who I've since unfollowed after their OTT reactions to the not guilty verdicts. "I'd never come forward if I was raped" "no girl will tell the police after what she's went through" yet the PSNI have came out and said they've had something like 20 odd similar complaints since this case started which they say is well above average.

[Orchard park]

would lesser charges of sexual assualt have been found guilty

did Crown prosecution over egg the charges either on their own or at the behest of someone who may have highlighted fears of a civil case being taken

[brokencrossbar1]

would lesser charges of sexual assualt have been found guilty

did Crown prosecution over egg the charges either on their own or at the behest of someone who may have highlighted fears of a civil case being taken

Paddy Jackson was charged with sexual assault and was found not guilty

[Mayo4Sam]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

[Orchard park]

also charged with rape.

i should have stated sexual assualt alone

[RedHand88]

The problem with social media and especially twitter is that it actively encourages you to follow with people of similar beliefs. What happens is that your newsfeed becomes dominated with posts from people whos beliefs and values fit your your own narrative, which then becomes fact in your eyes. This was clear in the shock and horror in some circles that they were found not guilty. These people had a pre-determined notion in their heads that the 4 were unquestionably guilty, because everything they read on social media concurred with this belief.

I personally would try to follow a few people who don't share my beliefs to get a bit of perspective on things and as such there's a lot of #ibelileveher stuff on my timeline. It's very hard not to type something but as has been said if you weigh in at all you're labelled a rape apologist etc. it's just not worth it!

Same. If you question their angle at all you are a rapist. It's best to not engage. I think there was a silent majority during the trial that believed they would not be found guilty that is only able to speak about the trial now.

[RedHand88]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

If she called you by your screen name on an internet forum its no wonder it didn't work out! 

[Milltown Row2]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

I didn't agree to sex the other night! Sexual assault but not rape

[brokencrossbar1]

also charged with rape.

i should have stated sexual assualt alone

He could still have been found guilty of sexual assault if he was found not guilty of rape. 2 separate acts. The fact that he was found not guilty of sexual assault suggests to me that the jury felt she was there consensually as Jackson admitted to doing what he was accused of in the sexual assault. If they felt she didn't consent then they would have found him guilty. That's one of the reasons I believe that they didn't believe her in her assertion that it was not consensual

[TabClear]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

I dont agree with this M4S. To me its obvious there was consent in both the situations above and It was reasonable in both situations to assume consent had been given.  The woman is entitled to change her mind from a No to a Yes just as much as from a Yes to a No at any point.

The situation with the guy with no condom is different, he was doing something he knew she would not have consented to (and was a complete sc**bag for doing so by the way and I have no sympathy for him).

[Orchard park]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him

The article you posted explicitly stated that they had clearly agreed, in advance, there would be no unprotected sex. They were fooling around a bit, as you say, and he penetrated her as you say. That is rape, clear as daylight. The fact you don't get that is appalling.

I'll tell you why I have sympathy for him.
It's an example which happened to me a few years ago. I'd been seeing a girl and we broke up, a few weeks later we run into each other, get chatting, I end up back at her place. She says "we're not having sex". We go to bed, one thing leads to the other and we end up having sex. She has never explicitly given consent but it has been implied in the heat of the moment.
She could easily have said the minute we started "Mayo4Sam you're raping me".
I can't be the only one here that has been in this situation or one where you meet a young one out who says "you can come home with me but we're not having sex" only to end up having sex. By the judgement above that's rape

If she called you by your screen name on an internet forum its no wonder it didn't work out! 

more likely to say mayo4sam  you take a long time to come dont you

[theskull1]

Time to lawyer up 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-gu6s0eGOk