Belfast Rugby Players Rape Trial

[Reapersoul20]

If that is a true representation of the evidence I'd have convicted. So it is inevitable that there is going to be a backlash when Paddy Jackson is given a leadership role even though he wasn't convicted. And backlashes tend to be quite vociferous. So while I wouldn't advocate calling him a rapist on social media I don't have any sympathy for him either.

I mean we are effectively in agreement then. I just don't agree with these complete and total gowls who refuse to hear any kind of a theory against the prevailing wind.

The kind of complete and total arrogant liudramáns who posts things like "don't even bother" or "thank god the feminist movement has people like you" - things which add absolutely nothing to the discussion and just completely show their lack of understanding of the case and the wider implications of it.

They rugby players are probably scrotes. Fair enough. I also don't think it's fair to go around calling them rapists and ruining their lives on what amounts to very very little evidence. Also fair enough IMO.

Beside this, the main point I've made is that a movement to

(a) improve the quality of life of complainants in rape cases by not forcing them through such despicable conditions and
(b) educate chauvinist rugby pricks and other groups where such opinions are commonly held

would be far more beneficial for society, and would gather far more momentum, than the current "Jackson is a rapist" movement which is only serving to further polarize opinions - which can easily be seen in this thread and across the internet.

Fair enough if you disagree. I honestly don't see how you can at this point, but I suppose some of you may be privy to more information than can be shared online in this case. That's my situation with the Ian Bailey case .

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Yep.

In the year ending March 2020 99% of rapes reported to the police in Wales & England resulted in no legal proceedings against the attackers, which is a terrifying stat.

And even if you're lucky enough that your rapist does go on trial a conviction is still unlikely. Plus even seeking it may involve you being put through an awful ordeal (the victim in the Jackson case spent 8 days in the witness box being cross-examined by four sets of barristers, for example) and then receiving abuse afterwards from members of your peer group and community (and beyond in higher profile cases) who don't believe you.

At a certain point not reporting it just seems easier.

Absolutely. Rape is a low risk crime for the scumbags who perpetrate it.

Women being cross examined will be utterly humiliated.They will be called promiscuous, it will be insinuated that they wanted it really, their character will be called into question in every way and their sexual history trawled. It'll be suggested that they are immoral (because they drink and have had sex).

Look at the defences line of questioning: "Why did she kiss him if she didn't want sex?" "Any celebrity would have done and you just wanted a shag" "You went up stairs so you must have wanted it" "You were bleeding before hand" "Why didn't you divulge all details of your horrendous ordeal immediately?"

I have no idea how this problem is rectified. Rightly, to convict, you must present a case that shows guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. Except in cases where there are lots of witnesses, strong video evidence or a confession then that burden of proof is nigh on impossible to meet as even forensic evidence is disputed.

The horrible reality is that rape and sexual assaults are both common and generally consequence free for the assaulter.

 

[Brophs]

I mean we are effectively in agreement then. I just don't agree with these complete and total gowls who refuse to hear any kind of a theory against the prevailing wind.

The kind of complete and total arrogant liudramáns who posts things like "don't even bother" or "thank god the feminist movement has people like you" - things which add absolutely nothing to the discussion and just completely show their lack of understanding of the case and the wider implications of it.

They rugby players are probably scrotes. Fair enough. I also don't think it's fair to go around calling them rapists and ruining their lives on what amounts to very very little evidence. Also fair enough IMO.

Beside this, the main point I've made is that a movement to

(a) improve the quality of life of complainants in rape cases by not forcing them through such despicable conditions and
(b) educate chauvinist rugby pricks and other groups where such opinions are commonly held

would be far more beneficial for society, and would gather far more momentum, than the current "Jackson is a rapist" movement which is only serving to further polarize opinions - which can easily be seen in this thread and across the internet.

Fair enough if you disagree. I honestly don't see how you can at this point, but I suppose some of you may be privy to more information than can be shared online in this case. That's my situation with the Ian Bailey case .

I’ll repeat, lads. Don’t even bother.