The ulster rugby trial

[Milltown Row2]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

[seafoid]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.

Twitter doesn't work with anything that is polarising such as rape, Orange marches, GOP vs Dems etc

[Milltown Row2]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

OJ Simpson was acquitted in an hour.

Presumably you think that was as clear cut as it gets too.

If the glove doesn't fit, you have to acquit

[AZOffaly]

Anything emotive at all.

[Therealdonald]

I think justice was served.

[seafoid]

Anything emotive at all.

Yeah. Plus it is a very polarised time as well.

[sid waddell]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.

[sid waddell]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.

But there are a lot of rape apologists out there. Gary Walsh is one. Luke Rossiter of Drogheda United is one. George Hook is one. We know Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen is one because he believes there is no such thing as spousal rape (Hook stated this on the national airwaves too).

Pointing that out is more than legitimate - these views deserve to be exposed for what they are.

[Milltown Row2]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.

The QC is there to do a job, would you prefer him to just suit your narrative?

[gallsman]

Now they're spreading fake tweets from jackson where he boasts about the verdict. And people are believing it as genuine! I am done with social media. It's bad for your health.

Who are "they"?

[Minder]

Now they're spreading fake tweets from jackson where he boasts about the verdict. And people are believing it as genuine! I am done with social media. It's bad for your health.

Who are "they"?

Aye I just saw the tweet, people are mental

[sid waddell]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

Where are they and who are they? I'd say the vast majority on here felt this was a horrible case and so many things were wrong about that night..

As for the #ibelieveher crowd, they also believe in aliens, earth is flat and the queen is a reptile (last might be true )

The jury, not us seen, heard evidence and even visited the crime scene... hours of testimonies and questions, weeks of  court time plus direction from a judge far more up in the ways of law that is, and they came to a decision very quickly..

It goes to show actually how much was reported, to have it fairly evenly split (based on the poll here) that we actually knew fcuk all about the case. Cause if we did then most of, if not all would have voted to say not guilty... and we'd be sitting on 20 pages

Social media getting in the way of the facts as per usual

Have a wee gander on Twitter there and see what you can come up with.

And do get back to me on my points about what the QC implied.

Asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" is not categorically not consent.

Lack of screaming or fight reaction is categorically not consent.

Defence QC or not, Brendan Kelly implied both of those those things imply consent.

They categorically don't.

The QC is there to do a job, would you prefer him to just suit your narrative?

That compliance or submission does not mean consent is not a narrative. It is a fact.

What Mr. Kelly did involved weaving tired old tropes which are untrue into a narrative.

[Itchy]

Finding a victim of rape willing to go to trial and enough evidence to convict is a rare thing. The chilling effect of today is something rotten and only makes young women feel less protected by the law.

I can accept the verdict of a jury who found that the burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt was not met.

What I find much harder to accept is the reflex reaction of so many knuckle dragging men on social media who have reacted to the verdict by treating it as a legitimisation of and a victory for their neanderthal views of women, of rape and of the concept of what is consent, and who erroneously or mendaciously make out that the verdict means that the complainant was lying, and who believe it gives them carte blanche to now seek to humiliate the complainant publicly, including naming her.

And it's hard to not think that the content of what the defence QCs said did not contribute to that. The implication that asking in desperation to "at least use a condom" implies consent, when it categorically does not. The rhetoric that the complainant not screaming amounted to consent, when it categorically did not. The assertions that the woman's confusion as a result of trauma in the hours after the events amounted to lies.

It's a sort of Trump moment. The knuckle draggers of social media now believe they have been given the green light to spout every abhorrent idea they've ever had about women and about rape and get away with it.

And the ying to their yang are the women who use a verdict they disagree with to tar all men as rapists or rape apologists, and despite not being within an asses roar of the courtroom feel qualified to rubbish the jury's opinion.

Twitter, on a topic like this, is poison.

+1
Some of the stuff I've read today from so cslled feminists is shocking and every moron with an account doing #ibelieveher without most if them having a notion what the evidence was. Personally I think th3se are a bunch of typical horrible rugby pricks but that doesn't make them rapists. A jury of men and women reached a unanimous verdict very quickly and thats the best system we have to determine innocent orbguilty

[macdanger2]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

[Milltown Row2]

A unanimous verdict in a ridiculously short time tells you this was as clear cut as it gets. Regardless of whether you believe her story it's a scandal that the case as it was handled even made it to court.

A few people have made a similar comment to this - do you think that only cast iron cases should be brought to trial? If the case wasn't brought and it came out, people would be calling it a cover up

Well if you're not sure that case is cast iron why would you go with it?