The ulster rugby trial

[Maiden1]

I am not surprised at all the guys got off but to me there was a lot of inconsistencies in the guys stories as well as the girls.

DF seeing Olding getting oral and not looking like it was forced, I don't think any other verdict other than not guilty could be reached.
Jackson hammered and jet-lagged from coming home from South Africa not being able to get it up is plausible.
McIlroy saying he had sex with the girl and no one else saying this happened (not even the girl) is very hard to work out other than being a weird way of muddying the waters on getting done for exposure.
Harrison meeting the guys the next day and not mentioning at all that the girl from the night before was in bits in the taxi and had texted him that morning claiming 'what happened was non consensual' is very hard to believe.  In my experience if anyone at all got layed the night before someone would be looking details or there would at least be a bit of slagging.  What where the guys talk about over coffee? how well Northern Ireland played?

[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

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).

I disagree with you here. In both cases the guy is presuming that consent has been implied to be given through what is going on

[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).

I disagree with you here. In both cases the guy is presuming that consent has been implied to be given through what is going on

Fair enough. If this thread proved anything its that there are is a hell of a lot of grey areas around the legalities of consent, in particular whether one party could have "reasonable belief that consent has been given"

[Dinny Breen]

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!

Likewise although eventually I just block Ewan MacKenna for being a c**k.

This #Ibelieveher is all over my timeline and if you were judge Ireland purely on this we we would not reflect well.

Our female population seem on the majority to refuse to recognise the juries decision and anyone that points this out is a rape apologist or a troll. We have societal insecurities around class and the law is there to protect the rich. We then a sizeable portion of ignorance, racism and sexism.

Anyhow for me pornography has been normalised, I remember at 14 seeing my first porn and being disgusted, I was completely innocent, for the porn generation however this is how they expect sex to be. Having spent the best part of 12 years coaching young men the language, the comments in their Whatsapp group were to be expected but I don't judge them on it, there is a peer pressure, they would also have their own colloquialisms. Individually you find the vast majority of young men are thoughtful and respectful towards women but the pack mentality, a mentality that is cultured by clubs and coaches to bring a togetherness, can take over and lads want to be the alpha male, the top shagger, the best fighter, the best drinker, the man, the hero, the legend. It's only through education that you try and change the mentality. And it starts at home, in the classroom and on the pitch. Zero tolerance towards sexism, zero tolerance towards racism, zero tolerance to homophobia/gay slander. You teach respect and you show respect.

Politicians are a reflection of us as a society, our laws reflect us, social media is a reflection of us. It's easy sit on the sideline and say that's not me but it is and every time we ignore a sexist comment or a racist or homophobic comments we are just feeding our societal issues. Change starts at home, when I parent I want my children to be better than me, when I coach I want my players not to be just good players but better people.   

This was on OTB this morning around consent and it's definitely something I will be showing my daughter and son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

[theskull1]

Generally speaking ..... theres not enough acceptance (certainly on social media) that both parties need to take ownership of risk when it comes to their engagement with the opposite sex. Every normal physical relationship involves nudging things along with non verbal cues. You try to read the signals rather than kill the vibe with constant explicit requests to move to the next base so to speak. With copius amounts of drink, I'd say its very easy for non verbal signals to be misread and confusion to reign. Such a wooly area when verbal communication isn't used. This case was the very extreme end of this it would seem.

[Taylor]

Generally speaking ..... theres not enough acceptance (certainly on social media) that both parties need to take ownership of risk when it comes to their engagement with the opposite sex. Every normal physical relationship involves nudging things along with non verbal cues. You try to read the signals rather than kill the vibe with constant explicit requests to move to the next base so to speak. With copius amounts of drink, I'd say its very easy for non verbal signals to be misread and confusion to reign. Such a wooly area when verbal communication isn't used. This case was the very extreme end of this it would seem.

But was it the extreme of it skull or was it because much of it was played out in the media and it had high profile names?

Have no idea but interesting to see if many other rape cases have a he said/she said scenario

[seafoid]

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!

Likewise although eventually I just block Ewan MacKenna for being a c**k.

This #Ibelieveher is all over my timeline and if you were judge Ireland purely on this we we would not reflect well.

Our female population seem on the majority to refuse to recognise the juries decision and anyone that points this out is a rape apologist or a troll. We have societal insecurities around class and the law is there to protect the rich. We then a sizeable portion of ignorance, racism and sexism.

Anyhow for me pornography has been normalised, I remember at 14 seeing my first porn and being disgusted, I was completely innocent, for the porn generation however this is how they expect sex to be. Having spent the best part of 12 years coaching young men the language, the comments in their Whatsapp group were to be expected but I don't judge them on it, there is a peer pressure, they would also have their own colloquialisms. Individually you find the vast majority of young men are thoughtful and respectful towards women but the pack mentality, a mentality that is cultured by clubs and coaches to bring a togetherness, can take over and lads want to be the alpha male, the top shagger, the best fighter, the best drinker, the man, the hero, the legend. It's only through education that you try and change the mentality. And it starts at home, in the classroom and on the pitch. Zero tolerance towards sexism, zero tolerance towards racism, zero tolerance to homophobia/gay slander. You teach respect and you show respect.

Politicians are a reflection of us as a society, our laws reflect us, social media is a reflection of us. It's easy sit on the sideline and say that's not me but it is and every time we ignore a sexist comment or a racist or homophobic comments we are just feeding our societal issues. Change starts at home, when I parent I want my children to be better than me, when I coach I want my players not to be just good players but better people.   

This was on OTB this morning around consent and it's definitely something I will be showing my daughter and son.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8

The tea analogy doesn't work in Ireland

Initial tea refusal should be accompanied by the words: No thanks, I'm grand. And the second refusal should be accompanied by the words: Noo thanks, sure I'm grand
The third asking is followed by a yes

You couldn't run sexual relations on the basis of Irish tea etiquette

[theskull1]

I'd be fairly certain plenty of wild and crazy goings on have happened between multiple adults in the wee hours after a night out on the drink. I'd still define such frivolity as extreme even if everyone was happy with the arrangement (i.e they woke up the next day and accepted their willingness at the time to take part in the proceedings) . Just my definition though

[Asal Mor]

  Very true seafoid.

[passedit]

Worth a read below.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ireland-ulster-rugby-rape-case-not-guilty-brendan-kelly-qc-victim-a8278216.html

There's a commonly quoted statistic regarding rape allegations. Of all those reported to the police, only 7.5 per cent result in a conviction.

That's not to say that more don't lead to guilty verdict, at least in the minds of many. It's just that this verdict tends to fall on the head of the woman making the accusation.

Today saw Ireland and Ulster rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding found not guilty of raping a woman in June 2016. To some, such a verdict is instantly flipped: not guilty for them must mean guilty for their accuser. In legal terms – and in terms of pure logic – this isn't true (and there are no signs that the complainant is about to be charged with perverting the course of justice).

This hasn't stopped the men's lawyers from complaining about lives being blighted by "false claims", nor held back the Twitter mob. "I hope this bitch gets locked up for trying to ruin the lives of these lads" declares one commentator, while another bemoans "another career ruined by some fame-chasing bitch" (clearly oblivious to the MRA rules which state one must be in favour of a complainant's name being made public).

The response is disappointing, but not necessarily surprising. After all, who has really been on trial here? Whose guilt, morally if not legally, have we really been trying to prove? Watching the trial progress, it seemed to me the question was never "are these men rapists?", but always "is this woman a liar?"

Such a framing of the situation – both inside the courtroom and beyond – matters a great deal, if not for the verdict itself, then for the future wellbeing of the accuser and any woman who wishes to make a similar complaint. If our focus is not on men's propensity to commit acts of sexual violence, but on women's propensity to lie, we perpetuate a culture in which women's testimonies are seen as unreliable before a word has been said.

Of course, many words were said at the trial of Jackson and Olding. According to the defence, the complainant only took the morning after pill in order to "run the lie of the classic rape victim". She may have said she froze when the attack took place, but as Brendan Kelly QC put it, "what does frozen mean? Is it one of the lies? Is it a lie deployed to explain what happened?" (No, Mr Kelly. "Frozen" means not being able to move because you're terrified or in shock. Happy to help).

It's not that Kelly's questioning of the complainant's account tells us anything about whether the final verdict was correct or otherwise. Nonetheless, such a wilful dismissal of the potential effect of trauma reinforces the sense that we're not supposed to see the complainant as a potential victim at all. On the contrary, she's the suspect.

Ulster and Ireland rugby players found not guilty in rape trial

In Down Girl, the philosopher Kate Manne argues that when a woman is cast as "playing the victim", it's not just a case of her not being believed. For women, even claiming the status of victim is a transgressive act: "What she's doing may stand out not because she's claiming more than her due but because we're not used to women claiming their due in these contexts. Women are expected to provide an audience for dominant men's victim narratives, providing moral care, listening, sympathy and soothing".

This argument makes sense to me in relation to the treatment of women in rape trials. Rationally we must know it is ludicrous to cast women who accuse famous men of assault as money-grabbing and fame-hungry (where are these fame-hungry accusers? Usually in hiding). But still they are suspected of something. It can't just be that rape is difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. It can't just be that beliefs about consent and entitlement differ and need updating. No, we must cast the accuser in the role, if not of outright villain, then of transgressor.

According to Claire Waxman, London's first victims' commissioner, more and more rape complainants are withdrawing from prosecutions due to demands for information held on computers, mobile phones and social media. While some information can clearly be relevant, other details – such as childhood histories of mental health problems – are being sought out in what can only be an attempt to discredit the complainant as a person.

When we reach this point, we need to ask ourselves who is really being put in the dock. Is our response to a rape complainant – not just during the trial, but afterwards, regardless of the verdict – really based on any certainty of what happened? Or are we indulging in fantasies of retribution against women who step out of line by speaking up in the first place? If so, we need to take a step back. No one was found guilty today. Those railing against "false accusers" may need to look closer to home

[Taylor]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

[Syferus]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions deserved.

[brokencrossbar1]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

[nrico2006]

I wonder if there is any slanderous ranting at these rallies directed towards Jackson and the 3 other innocent victims that could end up with court appearances for some of those in attendance.

[AQMP]

I wonder if there is any slanderous ranting at these rallies that could end up with court appearances for some of those in attendance.

What did you hear?