The ulster rugby trial

[theskull1]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

[sid waddell]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

[Milltown Row2]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

[sid waddell]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

No, that would have been you, pal.

Since you're always so confident in the judicial process, like.

[Milltown Row2]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

No, that would have been you, pal.

Since you're always so confident in the judicial process, like.

The same judicial system let them go. Pal

[sid waddell]

Can Twitter or FB be sued for failing to regulate all this defamation?

That would be great. The level of ignorance about the justice system and the case itself on twitter is ... I was going to type shocking or staggering, actually it's very predictable.

It would strongly appear that the biggest level of ignorance about the justice system came from the jury itself.

Given that the foreperson was on the internet within hours blabbing after being specifically instructed not to do so by the judge, I would suggest the chances that that juror was not doing their own research on the trial as it progressed are slim.

You read what he said?

I'm well able to read, thanks. If only the same could be said for you.

You read the case through twitter and still favoured a guilty verdict, well read is something you ain't

I'm well read enough to know when to put a full stop at the end of a sentence, at least.

Oh, and I still think they did it, by the way. I'd be quite up front about that.

Yeah,  you probably think the Birmingham six did it also and the Guildford four!

Full stop! Dick.

No, that would have been you, pal.

Since you're always so confident in the judicial process, like.

The same judicial system let them go. Pal

Yeah, after 14 and 16 years of you thinking them guilty, no doubt.

[Milltown Row2]

Nope! Not in the slightest but you probably thought since their release that they should never have got out!

It was an overwhelming verdict and you still believe she was telling the truth? Crave attention much?

[theskull1]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say. 

[sid waddell]

Nope! Not in the slightest but you probably thought since their release that they should never have got out!

It was an overwhelming verdict and you still believe she was telling the truth? Crave attention much?

Given that you're a noted troll, that's one of the unintentionally funniest lines I've read on this forum.

Go and look up what not guilty means. It is not a finding of innocence as regards the crime.

And you might learn a bit about the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six while you're at it, given that you're evidently pretty clueless about them. They were proved innocent. The defendants in this case were not.

[sid waddell]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say. 

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

[moysider]

People wonder about the reaction to this verdict. In the climate after the Harvey Weinstein revelations, how could anybody have expected any other reaction. I see Rose McGowan said that what happened in Belfast was unacceptable but she must realise also that she would be wasting her time bringing Weinstein to court - and probably any other complainants  else as well. All he has to say, is that they consented. So maybe he is a victim as well and should get his old job back?
I have a problem with three big strong lads taking advantage of a young girl. They were acquitted of rape but it stinks.
The message is that young women should put a bad experience behind them and zip it. Women are encouraged to report stuff like this but when they do, they are subjected to a procedure that is devastating. That's the way it is and I understand why the process is the way it is.
If that girl was my daughter, I would be mad as hell but wouldn't let her go through that. I don't have a daughter but if my sons were accused of something like that, I would expect their lawyers to do everything they could to keep them out of goal. That's how polarised this kind of thing gets.

I read this last Sunday, and at the time I thought about the Belfast verdict coming down the tracks. I couldn't see a conviction. The column doesn't even mention the Belfast case btw.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-sunday-times-magazine/sexual-revolution-2-0-how-to-flirt-and-have-sex-after-metoo-67b0gs2c9

[Syferus]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say. 

Because literally everyone knows it's a loaded alt-right term.

But, sure, go ahead and keep at it and see how many people take you seriously.

[theskull1]

I have a problem with three big strong lads taking advantage of a young girl. They were acquitted of rape but it stinks.
The message is that young women should put a bad experience behind them and zip it. Women are encouraged to report stuff like this but when they do, they are subjected to a procedure that is devastating. That's the way it is and I understand why the process is the way it is.
If that girl was my daughter, I would be mad as hell but wouldn't let her go through that. I don't have a daughter but if my sons were accused of something like that, I would expect their lawyers to do everything they could to keep them out of goal. That's how polarised this kind of thing gets.

None of us has the right info to judge whether it stinks or not in fairness. You may be right and initial non verbal consent to 'get busy' got out of hand but what the hell do you or I know what went or what was in the hearts and minds of the individuals. She may have been complicit up to the point she was seen in compromising state by the woman she didn't know and felt frightened about her reputation at that point. I don't have a clue. All I know is I don't know ... how come so many are certain without holding the facts? Just like child abuse.... young people need to be educated about their responsibilities when it comes to physical relationships because its fraught with risk and very prone to error judgements.

[moysider]

I have a problem with three big strong lads taking advantage of a young girl. They were acquitted of rape but it stinks.
The message is that young women should put a bad experience behind them and zip it. Women are encouraged to report stuff like this but when they do, they are subjected to a procedure that is devastating. That's the way it is and I understand why the process is the way it is.
If that girl was my daughter, I would be mad as hell but wouldn't let her go through that. I don't have a daughter but if my sons were accused of something like that, I would expect their lawyers to do everything they could to keep them out of goal. That's how polarised this kind of thing gets.

None of us has the right info to judge whether it stinks or not in fairness. You may be right and initial non verbal consent to 'get busy' got out of hand but what the hell do you or I know what went or what was in the hearts and minds of the individuals. She may have been complicit up to the point she was seen in compromising state by the woman she didn't know and felt frightened about her reputation at that point. I don't have a clue. All I know is I don't know ... how come so many are certain without holding the facts? Just like child abuse.... young people need to be educated about their responsibilities when it comes to physical relationships because its fraught with risk and very prone to error judgements.

Is the education just for children and women though? To protect themselves from paedophiles and male sex predators? The lads texts suggest that they are predators bty. Not their first time at a rodeo I would guess,
  Why should children have to take any responsibility for being abused. Are you also implying that girls that are 'raped' put themselves at risk and make poor judegments and so are responsible for what happens to them?
Anyway read the article above. I'm not in a position to give a woman's perspective. I suspect a lot of those people that turned up for those #Ibelieverher rallies have had their own experiences or know sisters or friends that have.
It's more than just this case. This was just a litmus test case and I can understand why a lot of women would feel that the dice is loaded against them.

I don't buy that stuff about being frightened about her reputation. She would have known what was going to happen in court. If anything, the result has destroyed her entirely.

[theskull1]

Oh here we go 

You can say nothing in this space without inferences being drawn 

Im simply saying be careful out there BECAUSE people of dubious character exist in the world and the more awareness of the world around us help us make better choices (although risk still exists). No harm in that I don't think is there?