Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 7 of 118 FirstFirst ... 345678910111757107 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 1175

Thread: Rape - how important is your underwear

  1. #61
    Politics.ie Member Niall996's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,821
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Emily Davison View Post
    She absolutely has to defend her client. There's no question of that.

    Whether she should have used that particular point about the underwear is what the thread is about.
    No she shouldn't have. It's probably the most absurd vile so called piece of evidence I've ever heard of. My jaw dropped when I read it. Unbelievable. She should be dragged through the media and made to account.
    Bringing reconciliation, mutual respect and cross community understanding to Northern Ireland through facts

  2. #62
    Politics.ie Member RodShaft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    9,566
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by locke View Post
    Enough reasonable doubt was generated that a not guilty verdict was returned.

    Juries don't find people innocent.
    No. They find them not guilty and the presumption of innocence continues.
    On 25 May 2018, websites targetting EU residents became subject to GDPR and a whole host of legal requirements.

  3. #63
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    3,483
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    It's yet another thread on this forum which has flushed out some very disgusting attitudes - those of DE being prominent.

  4. #64
    Politics.ie Member gerhard dengler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Utopia
    Posts
    47,435
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritzbox View Post
    So? He was found innocent by unanimous decision of a 12-member jury - four of whom were women.
    And that's the bottom line.

    File this thread under the Paddy Jackson trial, redux.
    Politics.ie moderators should moderate instead.
    Welcome to Political Irish | Political Irish

  5. #65
    Politics.ie Newbie
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CookieMonster View Post
    No, but it implies that she's a slut and therefore asking for it and sure you can't blame a bloke for raping a slut who was asking for it (even, apparently, if she's made it clear that she in fact doesn't want it).
    It only implies that to people with a poor view of others as you ably demonstrate in your lurid rant. Either way, Its for the prosecution to tell the jury that Mother Theresa was innocently picking daisies in the fields at the time. Thats the adversarial system. The assumptions on this thread are breathtaking.

  6. #66
    Politics.ie Member Ireniall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Co. Leix
    Posts
    7,810
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by petaljam View Post
    Maybe she changed her mind when she was in the alleyway, maybe he seemed really cool inside in the club, but weird and creepy outside? Maybe a bit rapey even? Someone who wants to hurt a woman rather than just have sex with her?
    To me the reference to the thong was in very poor taste. Since it was an under garment it does not fall into the traditional 'asking for it' category which I thought was no longer acceptable in courtrooms. But this one was slightly different in that instead of notionally sending out the 'I'm available' signal it was instead suggested as an indication of the disposition of the complainant herself to find someone to have sex with-anyone will do by implication- a ridiculous and offensive proposition which amounted to a handy way to call her a slut and which diminishes the court by its being allowed to stand

    On another issue -it was suggested earlier in the thread that going to bed with some one was not necessarily an agreement to have sex. While this might be correct in a technical kind of way I believe that in reality this is not the case. I believe that if you go to bed with some one you are agreeing to have sex with them and it is entirely reasonable that people in a jury or anywhere else make that assumption. Now as against this -is it possible to be raped by the person that you've agreed to go to bed with-sure of course it is but this involves saying no when you've already said yes and usually the no is a verbal denial of permission which instantly disappears into the ether while you've already said yes in a manner which generally can't be denied afterwards so that any jury has virtually no choice except to find the case not proven and in this case it seems that the doubt about the complainant having been dragged into the muddy lane seems to have led to a similar conclusion. In other words the thinking seems to be that if she went into the lane with him voluntarily the sex was likely to have been consensual. Anyway -isn't it great that we don't know any names involved.

  7. #67
    Politics.ie Member twokidsmanybruises's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    6,668
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ireniall View Post
    To me the reference to the thong was in very poor taste. Since it was an under garment it does not fall into the traditional 'asking for it' category which I thought was no longer acceptable in courtrooms. But this one was slightly different in that instead of notionally sending out the 'I'm available' signal it was instead suggested as an indication of the disposition of the complainant herself to find someone to have sex with-anyone will do by implication- a ridiculous and offensive proposition which amounted to a handy way to call her a slut and which diminishes the court by its being allowed to stand

    On another issue -it was suggested earlier in the thread that going to bed with some one was not necessarily an agreement to have sex. While this might be correct in a technical kind of way I believe that in reality this is not the case. I believe that if you go to bed with some one you are agreeing to have sex with them and it is entirely reasonable that people in a jury or anywhere else make that assumption. Now as against this -is it possible to be raped by the person that you've agreed to go to bed with-sure of course it is but this involves saying no when you've already said yes and usually the no is a verbal denial of permission which instantly disappears into the ether while you've already said yes in a manner which generally can't be denied afterwards so that any jury has virtually no choice except to find the case not proven and in this case it seems that the doubt about the complainant having been dragged into the muddy lane seems to have led to a similar conclusion. In other words the thinking seems to be that if she went into the lane with him voluntarily the sex was likely to have been consensual. Anyway -isn't it great that we don't know any names involved.
    Reading the link in the OP, the reference to the girl"s underwear seems, like you say, ridiculous and offensive, but also completely unnecessary. Yes, she willingly went down the lane with him, but she revoked her consent by saying "no". The issue, as far as I can get from the information given, is that the boy claims that he did stop when she said "no", but the girl claims that he didn't. So it's a "he says/she says" situation and there is no objective third party who can provide evidence to support one side or the other. Clothing choices had absolutely nothing to do with it, so there wasn't a need for his lawyer to bring it into the case in the first place.
    "A little lie goes a long way when you can't say quite for sure what's the truth" - Mark Oliver Everett

  8. #68
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    5,821
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Toland View Post
    They do. That's what it means when you return a not guilty verdict. Because if there is not enough evidence to convict you, then you must be considered innocent in all public fora. Your suggestion otherwise is unfair and irresponsible.
    And that seems to increasingly be a problem, certainly in the Anglosphere, where people found not guilty in sex offence prosecutions are not presumed innocent as happens in other acquittals, We witnessed an outbreak of mass hysteria on the streets of Dublin earlier this year following one trial which resulted in acquittals, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they could have had a greater insight into that trial than the actual jury, who reached a verdict so quickly as to indicate that they were in little doubt about the correctness of the verdict.
    It was all the weirder as it resulted from a prosecution brought in Belfast, which, in other circumstances it would have received as much attention if it had been tried in Belgrade, given the usual indifference towards anything that happens north of the Carrickdale Hotel.

  9. #69
    Politics.ie Member sic transit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    24,791
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raetsel View Post
    And that seems to increasingly be a problem, certainly in the Anglosphere, where people found not guilty in sex offence prosecutions are not presumed innocent as happens in other acquittals, We witnessed an outbreak of mass hysteria on the streets of Dublin earlier this year following one trial which resulted in acquittals, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they could have had a greater insight into that trial than the actual jury, who reached a verdict so quickly as to indicate that they were in little doubt about the correctness of the verdict.
    It was all the weirder as it resulted from a prosecution brought in Belfast, which, in other circumstances it would have received as much attention if it had been tried in Belgrade, given the usual indifference towards anything that happens north of the Carrickdale Hotel.
    Mass hysteria? When was that?
    "There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self." Ernest Hemingway

  10. #70
    Politics.ie Member Niall996's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    London
    Posts
    10,821
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by raetsel View Post
    And that seems to increasingly be a problem, certainly in the Anglosphere, where people found not guilty in sex offence prosecutions are not presumed innocent as happens in other acquittals, We witnessed an outbreak of mass hysteria on the streets of Dublin earlier this year following one trial which resulted in acquittals, and for the life of me I cannot understand how people can be so presumptuous as to believe they could have had a greater insight into that trial than the actual jury, who reached a verdict so quickly as to indicate that they were in little doubt about the correctness of the verdict.
    It was all the weirder as it resulted from a prosecution brought in Belfast, which, in other circumstances it would have received as much attention if it had been tried in Belgrade, given the usual indifference towards anything that happens north of the Carrickdale Hotel.
    The spin is 'Not Guilty' does not equate to innocent, forgetting completely that the presumption is innocent to start with therefore not guilty means innocent.
    Bringing reconciliation, mutual respect and cross community understanding to Northern Ireland through facts

Page 7 of 118 FirstFirst ... 345678910111757107 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •