Messages

If he was concussed would he at least not have gone down injured for a while. Or better yet been replaced by Mignolet before the catastrophe.

Breathtaking ignorance of concussion right there.

Concussion is all about education. Rugby had the "man up" "sure he looks grand" shit for years, only now is it getting it's act together, same with NFL, horse-racing etc. Soccer and GAA miles behind.

"Tell him he's Pele and get him back on." Partick Thistle manager John Lambie, when told his concussed striker did not know who he was

http://www.tellhimhespele.com/

None of what happened that night reflects well on Liverpool, how many backroom staff do they have? To miss that?

As for the 'team', Karius walking off alone was bad enough but Ramos walking off at all says a lot about their spirit.

https://streamable.com/sb7kj

Pakistan 14 - 3. Ball hooping about. Shock on?

Shohei Otani living up to the billing so far.

Indeed. A lot of hype (see link) but looks the business so far.

http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/23026169/the-shohei-ohtani-experience-keep-track-angels-phenom-two-way-quest .

Surprised America's game gets so little love on here. Leagues have started promisingly with the Yankees under 500 and booing Stanton, while as of today Phillies are a 500 club so I'm happy enough.

[The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.]

That's what I'd suggest too bcb. But to be honest I think anyone who doesn't understand No means No, and who thinks performing sex acts on a sleeping woman, or who thinks that marital rape is not a thing, like domestic violence, is hardly reflective of a culture. I can't believe those beliefs are widespread enough to be called a 'culture'.

The lack of respect in the language used, the expectations and behaviours, even entirely consensual, is probably more of a culture than any 'rape' culture.

I think we are all getting hung up on the label "rape culture". I think we need to define what is a culture before looking at what that culture represents. For me, a culture is an environment or atmosphere that permeates language and behaviour. Whilst we have laws banning rape and courts to pursue those who are accused, those are constitutional and legal institutions, representing democratic or social norms and mores (the women's suffragette movement was an explicitly political process). They are not cultural norms or mores.

For instance, if you ask 100 lads on this board (or any other) should tax evaders be prosecuted, to a man they would probably say yes. That is a democratic and social norm - for our society to function there must be a presumption of equality before the law, and a presumption that all are willing to contribute to the society.

However, ask the same 100 if they were willing to do a nixer for you, a large number of them would say, ah sure why wouldn't I? That is cultural, the sideways glance at authority and an appreciation for the cute hoor. And there are good historical reasons for that.

Just because, as a society, we have designated certain acts to be illegal, does not mean that a culture cannot exist that subliminally encourages those acts. As anyone who can remember the atmosphere of corruption and sleaze that permeated Irish political life in the 80s, 90s and 00s would know, laws are aspirations, not definitive statements of what we are as a society - if they were, no none would ever have to be prosecuted because no one would be breaking laws.

I'm 42 now, and I would say my generation were the last to be able to have a completely offline life up to our early 20s, but were also the first, really, to deal with concepts like political correctness, the possible consequences of promiscuity (I remember the AIDS scare looming large over my teens), the changing place of women and minorities in our society. Which is not to say there was no feminism before the 90s, but as far we were concerned, the battles had been fought, equality was the way forward, and the question was settled.

Fast forward to now - as most have said, and I am willing to admit, I have objectified and belittled women in my past - mostly through ignorance and obliviousness (sure what are they complaining about, aren't we all equal now anyway?). But I cannot remember referring to women in the terms that we have seen, not just through this trial, but throughout our society. These are violent, dehumanising terms and it scares me to think that they are bandied about like that. I think there is a big link from porn to misogyny. Haranguerer was saying earlier that porn depicts both men and women enjoying sex - I don't think it could be further from the truth.

Porn is a power dynamic - the person whose fantasy it is holds the power. The woman's role is always performative - either the Madonna or the whore, dominant or submissive, participant or victim - she exists only in the gaze of the man and for the man's pleasure. She has no agency in the fantasy or scenario. She is being used, and increasingly it seems, violently. (I'm also sure that there is porn made for women by women, but it is nowhere near the pervasive influence that the traditional porn industry is.)

But if that is a bit esoteric for you, how about we remember Richard Keys and "did you smash it"? Or David Cameron and his "calm down dear"? Or the fact that men were actually surprised at the relevations of #metoo but every woman I know merely shook their heads and said it happens all the time? Or the fact that in RTE and the BBC, and in most industries, women have to suffer all manner of slight and abuse, but still can't get paid the same as men for doing the same job, a gap that is only getting worse?

We may not have a culture that says "rape is fine". But we do have a culture that says women are worth less, know less and are paid less than men, that still objectifies them everyday sexually, but now, perhaps worse than the 70s and 80s, instead of being honest about our chauvinism, we insist that we are all equal, and can they not have a sense of humour about things. And I think that is a regression from where we were when I was growing up.

And if we can't admit that such a culture as described above makes the abuse, even the rape of women, more likely, and if we prefer to argue about labels like "rape culture", than I can only see things deteriorating from here.

Put more eloquently than I was about to. I'd add that these same attitudes apply to domestic violence which has the same issues
I.e There's too much of it, It's greatly underreported, underprosecuted and underpunished (by verdict and sentence).

Overdosed on Toast of London on Netflix. For a second time.

Yes I can fcukin hear you Clem Fandango.

Hard to beat a bit of toast. Very funny.
Watching Sneaky Pete on amazon prime ATM. Started a bit slow but picked up nicely good show.

Yeah loved it and watched it through twice.  Will probably do it again.

Finished season-3 of 'the detectorists' over the weekend.  Great stuff.  Very English.

Quintessentially Billy Quintessentially, anything with Toby Jones in it is always worth a look. Marvellous is one of my favourite films.

I'd be exploring the silent partner route before speaking to the banks. It shouldn't be beyond your wit to work out a buy out arrangement with him now which will give him a good return on his capital provided you are successful. The banks will want their return no matter what and it won't just be the interest on whatever loan you manage to agree with them. You won't be able to shop around for everyday banking facilities or overdraft cover and all banks will charge extortionate rates for these once they have their hooks in. It would appear that he also has a bit of business savvy (or at least the ability to turn a pound) which can be a very useful resource for a bit of mentoring or even just for a second opinion.

Your biggest investment is going to be your time, whatever the opening hours of business are you can add half again for your involvement. Have you got the time and energy for that? All businesses are a risk no matter what past performance is, what's your fall back position if it doesn't work? How long can you work without a regular pay packet?

If you have an answer for these questions I say go for it. And do as much as you can without the banks. Mark Twain was right about them.

Overdosed on Toast of London on Netflix. For a second time.

Yes I can fcukin hear you Clem Fandango.

Hard to beat a bit of toast. Very funny.
Watching Sneaky Pete on amazon prime ATM. Started a bit slow but picked up nicely good show.

[With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?]

MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion?

I have to admit this comment made my spit my tea out!!

I was referring to the length of time of jury deliberation, which we are being reliably informed means that the jury didn't believe her at all therefore accepted Jackson's defence unreservedly.  I fully understand how the beyond reasonable doubt threshhold may not have been reached.

[With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?]

MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

Why do you say that? All the jury said was not guilty on the charges. They might well think Paddy Jackson is lying, but that the girl consented.

Then why lie about it? Why not just say that she consented? He lied about the crucial part of his defence and he still gets off with hardly a discussion? 

MS I'm not suggesting you are wrong but I saw the 7.5% claim in a recent article, I also saw a figure of 6% and 60% in other articles. Does anyone actually know what the correct statistic is and how it compares to other types of criminal complaint?

I posted the article with the 7.5% claim and was surprised it was that high tbh, then I reread it and saw it referred to reported rapes.Stats prove anything and It's logical that cases that actually make to court will have a much higher conviction rate as the 'weeding out' process is fairly savage*. When you add the number of women who either blame themselves or realise there is no prospect of a conviction then it's easy to get to the figure I had in my head (half remembered articles over many years) of around 2%. 

*  Not being in the criminal justice system my personal knowledge of this relates to one case where a 16 year old girl i knew (Childminders daughter) was raped by the security guard as she got changed after a shift at a local supermarket. There was a violent struggle in which she suffered hospitalising injuries and took quite a bit of his flesh with her fingernails. The cubicle door where he raoed her was torn off as well. The man was arrested and sacked but the CPS decided not to prosecute because she was active sexually. He got his job back and she had to leave. But sure she was probably asking for it putting it about and all.

With this particular case what I can't get my head around is that the jury believe that this girl serviced three men and none of them penetrated her with his penis? Really?

[7.5]

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

https://www.opendemocracy.net/David-Burnside-Putin-Russia-DUP-Brexit-Donaldson-Vincent-Tchenguiz

Nice local connection here. Long read with some lovely pictures so I won't quote it.

[depends on a lot of things]

It definitely feels different this time though . . . in 2009 it felt like the pinnacle whereas this time it's more of a run on the ladder.

This group of players are looking for more and 18 months time will be a big test!

Not a f**king hope in the RWC.

We are literally the 2nd best team in the world at the minute . . . of course it depends on a lot of things but surely that hast o be the target and it is definitely achievable!

Luck has to be better than last time when the team was eviscerated in the French game making them easy pickings a week later. Depth is probably better now but I'm not sure they could still withstand comparable losses this time round either.

Last saturday was strange, for such a momentous achievement, I found it all a bit flat probably because  I'm not sure I've ever been as cold at a sporting event but mainly because there was never a doubt about the outcome from the fifth minute on. I was expecting a lot more from the English but Ireland completely bossed them. The trys at the end only took the bad look of it.

Maybe all the 'she was asking for it' merchants with the advice for their daughters would be better advising their sons not to be complete scumbags around women maybe?

On the trial, my opinion is this would never have come to court if Jackson had claimed consensual sex. The fact that he claimed not to have had sex at all and was proved to be lying sinks him for me, but I'm only going on what's been reported from the trial. Of the rest of them, Olding would be the hardest for me to convict, not because he's anything other than a sc**bag but there isn't enough evidence (I wonder what happened to his clothes/ the girl on the settee) Harrison guilty for me, telling someone not to bring his phone to the interview then wiping his own? Not buying his story at all.