Ulster Rugby Rape Trial - Not guilty to all charges

But why are you saying it box? On this thread where people would like to discuss the case? And why have you repeated it so many times?

But you keep repeating that droll it will all be fogotten which adds fuck all Box and you've been pulled up on it NUMEROUS times so drop it yeah

Yes, we know Box. You have said it over and over until it became obvious that you were behaving like a goady troll, so I reported that you were behaving like a goady troll.

Or maybe I'm just hopelessly out of touch.

No, I don't think so.

FFS,

I was just saying that generally these issues die a death within a week. And things move on, such is life.

I hope I have not been reported for absolutely nothing. But if I am banned that is up to the MNHQ.

I got tired of the goading and reported it.

If actually wanting to engage on the thread it might help to say more about your thoughts behind the repeated it'll be forgotten soon posts boxthefox.

I think it’s just a troll is. Otherwise just a really weird obsession with getting people to stop talking about this trial. Either way best to ignore.

Box

I have been following this thread on and off. I just came back on and you are still saying the case will be forgotten by next week. Maybe by you but certainly not by me. What is your agenda?

The level of injury she received, being seen as something that would be standard and normal in a sexual ancounter between people who don't know each other, is incredibly worrying.

I agree with every word of your post Dukes. I have had 30 years of consensual and sometimes vigorous sex and never once bled or had a vaginal laceration from sex. I have never had a friend tell me about bleeding from a vaginal laceration after consensual sex - and we do talk about these things. It is astonishing to me that the jury accepted with remarkably little deliberation that of course a young woman out for the night would have a threesome with 2 men she had just met for the first time and of course that sex could be so rough that she would bleed. Just a regular night out in Belfast apparently. Both of those things could be true but for the jury to accept them as the starting point of credibility - that it is more likely that a woman would consent to rough sex that caused her bleeding with 2 strangers at the same time and then lie about it than she was raped ... well

I'd love to know were the defendants ever asked by police or in court whether they not only had a belief in her consent but believed she was enjoying it. Did she have an orgasm? Did they even think about this as a possibility for her? Did they ask her whether they could do something different or better?

I'm beginning to think the world is harder for women today wrt rape and assault than it was in the 90s.

One of my company's staff - one hateful person, everyone loathes her - actually said IN WORK that the 'ho' regretted having sex so made allegations against the poor 'boys'. I'm wondering what to do about this!! I want to raise merry Hell!!!

Do you know something else that PJ said when he was questioned about it that I thought was weird. He said he saw blood and thought it was her period. I'm probably a bit old and naïve but women often feel a bit...self conscious about sex when they have their period. Certainly with men they aren't in a relationship with. Did no one, including him, think it would be a bit unusual for a woman who has her period to initiate group sex with a bunch of strangers?

Or maybe I'm just hopelessly out of touch.

Sadly, next week it will be something else. All forgotten except by a few.

Watch this space.

Petition is over 40,000 signatures: www.change.org/p/irfu-conduct-a-review-of-jackson-olding-macilroy-and-harrison-s-behaviour?recruiter=270368211&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial.nafta_milestone_share_ask_victory.control

I was thinking of that case too, Treacle - the so called Spanner case.

That change in the law in Iceland sounds good. I'd also like to see it made a "strict liability" offence (I think that's the right term - a crime where only the material facts matter, not the belief of the person doing the act) to carry out any sort of aggravating assault during sex. In other words, if you and your partner were into rough sex you'd have to be bloody sure you had consent, because if you bruised or cut her during sex and she then went to the police, what you believed about the situation would be immaterial. That might focus a few men on the idea of making sure their partner really wanted sex, specially rough sex.

After all, tax law is strict liability. You can't get off by saying "oh well, it was all terribly complicated and I didn't really understand what was going on."

And as soon as the not guilty verdict comes back, every fucking thicko person seems to think this means the victim was obviously lying hmm

Yep 100% agree

I dont know why people are so stupid

beyond any possibility of doubt whatsoever

Pretty much sums it up. Which means the odds of getting a conviction are very very remote. Because, there will always be some doubt.

Surely there is a better way? When OJ Simpson was acquitted, Ron's father took OJ to civil court, and he was found responsible for their deaths.

Because in civil court, it's not decided by 12 randoms, but by a qualified judge, who goes on the basis of probability.

However, that surely only 'works' if the person can afford to do this, and if the attacker has money.

But it's not about money.

It's about being believed.

And as soon as the not guilty verdict comes back, every fucking thicko person seems to think this means the victim was obviously lying

Anyway. There needs to be something in between. We'll never get justice via the criminal system, and really it's impossible anyway, unless we accept innocent men will go to prison. Which we can't accept.

So, some sort of civil court, and the punishment should be some kind of community service, not money/prison.

Most rapes, that don't result in injury, there's no way you can ever prove beyond reasonable doubt that there wasn't consent.

And this case? A rape with injury, well, if that doesn't get a conviction (a long with the very very revealing messages between the men) then I think that's it for rape trials.

But then, I knew that anyway.

@HairyBallTheorem Yes. The law needs to change its conventions here. And
I don't think jury trials are appropriate for this and actually many other modern trials. They just aren't qualified.

That's something that's puzzled me, Dukes. AFAIK, what matters is that the defendant had reasonable belief that he had consent. The standard for reasonable is meant to be the good old person on the Clapham omnibus, not any level of delusional belief whatsoever in the mind of the defendant (s).

Exactly this. "Beyond reasonable doubt" shouldn't have to mean "beyond any possibility of doubt whatsoever".

@treaclesoda I think you may mean R v Brown:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rvv_Brown

Maybe someone with a legal background could explain if this is relevant?

If Iceland can do it, then maybe there is hope for other countries too. It's clearly not such an impossible idea if this law has been passed, with not a single person voting against it apparently (barring 1 abstention).

Has anyone else heard of the case, it's probably about 25 years ago, where some gay sadomasochists were charged with assault, and found guilty, despite all having consented? I suppose the law has maybe changed since then but it kept coming into my head when I was thinking of her internal injuries. She says (understandably) that she was in pain and didn't consent to the sex, which hurt her. But a bunch of men hurting each other, when they all agreed to it, was deemed to be illegal, back then anyway. Is violent sex now deemed to be something that everyone must accept?

Sounds like a very positive move

grapevine.is/news/2018/03/23/iceland-unanimously-passes-landmark-law-on-sexual-consent/

I saw something earlier (don't think it was this thread) but both her and Jackson agree that she stopped him from opening her trousers once she realised he didn't know her name. So how likely is it that a short time later she was inviting every man into the room for sex? She didn't want random sex with someone who didn't know her name. An hour later she's happy to be the centre of a gang bang?