The ulster rugby trial

[David McKeown]

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.

I don't think he did and to suggest so is somewhat disingenuous. What he said when you read the whole transcript is that you can look at this as part of a bigger picture. Had this girl not been consenting would she have said at least use a condom. Had she not been consenting would she not have fought or screamed. He wasn't suggesting that simply by not doing anything she was consenting he was saying that as a whole her actions were those of someone who was consenting and had she not been consenting she would have behaved differently. Perfectly acceptable points to raise which were raised in cross examination and which the prosecution had ample opportunity to rebut.

[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?

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.

So what Kelly said (according to the small bits you heard online, as you haven't been at the case) was the reason the Jury (who where there) took under 4 hours for a 9 week trial to come to the decision they did?

[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

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

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

[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?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

[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

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

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

No need to try to change the parameters of what I said.

Do I think that only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? Absolutely not. Do you?

[Syferus]

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?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

Do you actually know what the justice system is supposed to do?

[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.

So what Kelly said (according to the small bits you heard online, as you haven't been at the case) was the reason the Jury (who where there) took under 4 hours for a 9 week trial to come to the decision they did?

I'm not privy to the jury's reasons for what they decided.

What I do know is that Kelly's narrative implying that compliance means consent, that asking for a condom implies consent, that a victim's trauma and confusion in the hours afterwards amounts to deliberate lying, and that middle class women are uniquely abhorred by rape was a load of rot.

[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?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

No need to try to change the parameters of what I said.

Do I think that only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? Absolutely not. Do you?

I'd much prefer a case has better evidence than he said she said.. a lot of people went to jail based on people's words rather than proper evidence over the years here during the troubles . Certainly over here we have seen cases going to court that should never have

[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?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

Do you actually know what the justice system is supposed to do?

I'm not as smart as you when it comes to courts and justice systems 

[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

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

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

No need to try to change the parameters of what I said.

Do I think that only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? Absolutely not. Do you?

I'd much prefer a case has better evidence than he said she said.. a lot of people went to jail based on people's words rather than proper evidence over the years here during the troubles . Certainly over here we have seen cases going to court that should never have

You questioned me specifically on the point of cast iron cases but you don't seem to be willing to give your own opinion on it?

My original point was around comments that appear to question the validity of bringing a case based on the fact that the jury (unanimously) found the accused not guilty - I wouldn't agree with that stance.

[Therealdonald]

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?

You think only cast iron cases should be brought to prosecution? 

So you'd much prefer the 'well he could be guilty, sure let's give it a go' type cases?

Do you actually know what the justice system is supposed to do?

Better question is.... Is there anything you dont pretend to know Syf?

[Tony Baloney]

Great post Fionn.

[Itchy]

Great post Fionn.

+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

[gallsman]

Out of curiosity, what's a radical feminist compared to busy a regular feminist? Like very feminist but not "feminazi"?

[Tony Baloney]

Great post Fionn.

+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

Aye A definite exercise in futility. Leave them to it, this girl will be yesterday's news and #Repealthe8th will be back on.