Ulster Rugby Rape Trial - Not guilty to all charges

Oh...he tried to do it again later, but because I was terrified of him at that point I said no before he got near me.

This is CLEAR evidence that I MUST have looked like I was consenting earlier. Because, look what the comment says:

"An obvious question would be why she did not give this clear indication that she was no consenting on the second occasion."

Because I had just been woken up by someone who was raping me and had gone limp. The OBVIOUS answer to this question is that I was behaving like a rape victim at the time.

Either way..ALL MY FAULT. ALL OF IT. Its says so in black and white, see?

(I agreed to a different act earlier in the evening, to the one he forced on me later, whilst I was pretty much passed out).

Here's more from my decision:

" Y would have no reason to believe that X did not want sex again as she had agreed earlier in the evening, although this cannot be presumed it is a reasonable assumption."

where

Yes women are 50% of the population, surely we have a bit more power than to just be forced to accept that the law shafts women. Worse, it compounds their trauma.

What the hell can we do about this? We have to do something. I agree. I'm trying to find if there are campaigns currently to reform the legal system but haven't found anything.

I believe that although the rugby players may have used a high level of manipulation and peer pressure on the girl they did not physically force her or intimidate her into having sex, and she was consensual.

Manipulation and peer pressure is coercion which is not true consent.

Yet apparently her facebook's full of naughty photo's and video's of herself? When she consents she doesn't generally seem to care who sees what? But now she's shy all of a sudden?

Ridiculous argument. Just because someone shares their own photos and videos on social media doesn't mean they agree to all and sundry taking photos and sharing them. See the tea analogy, it might help you get your head round the idea of consent and what it means.

Jackson's lawyer was guy who defended April jone murderer -, doesn't care how he makes his money. No morals

Well that says it all really doesn't it?

Regardless of whether they believed the case was strong or not they would prosecute and lose rather than not prosecute and have all the rape groups/ women’s rights groups etc hammering them because they did not due to it being to famous rugby players.

That is bollocks.

to everyone sharing their stories on this thread.

Jesus christ. I really don't know how to process that this is the world we live in.

where I'm so sorry. That is awful to read. I feel like I can't be shocked by this stuff anymore, but then I read that.

What the hell can we do about this? We have to do something. This cannot be the way the law goes, that unless you put yourself at more risk by screaming and struggling (which is likely to get you thumped or strangled) then you are presumed to have consented. Or at least not not-consented in a way that the poor man would expect to recognise.

Police refused to refer my rape case to CPS this week on the basis that my attacker could reasonably assume I consented.

I didn't fight or shout out. Here's a line from what they consider reasonable consent looks like":

" X's account she states that she remained limp and if he had let her go she would have fallen down. In my opinion this is not a clear indication that she had not consented."

So penetrating a passed out, disorientated woman who you have to hold up because she is so limp to do so herself looks amounts to a reasonable belief in consent. In the eyes of the law.

Imo that 6% figure is important. Victims are choosing not to report rapes and when they do CPS are choosing not to take them forward for prosecution because under the current system rape just happens to be so difficult to prove.

Absolutely agree.

If CPS want women to continue to come forward they should look at the characteristics of the cases successfully prosecuted. I expect they include things rape victims are "supposed" to do. And then perhaps be honest about why a woman with fuck all chance of being considered credible would come forward.

Exactly.

to all of us who this case has brought back bad memories.

Thank you for the kind words, prosecco and Carroty.

I'm not telling anyone what to think any more than you are. You're the one that is saying our legal system is not fit for purpose and that you know better than the jurors who sat through the whole trial.

If a man is accused of rape, and can be placed at the scene... can the posters convinced that most if not all mem who are accused of rape are guilty, give an example of the sort of evidence that would persuade you the man was not guilty and did not deserve a lengthy jail sentence ?

See, I believe none exists really.

On the contrary, it seems that the opposite is true. There doesn't seem to be any amount of evidence that the prosecution can produce that is deemed to be enough to convince people that a man is guilty. Injuries, distress, willingness to submit to an invasive medical examination and hand over your underwear, willingness to sit in the witness box and be torn to shreds in the hope of getting justice, for your family and friends to hear intimate details about your body, your behaviour, your distress, your feelings of being violated. None of that comes close to being enough for most women in most rape cases.

So many think that a system that favours male offenders is a 'fair' system, and one that would even the balance even a tiny bit would be 'stacked against men'. Why is perceived unfairness only concerning when men might be held to account?

Ah ok WickedLazy I get what you meant now. I wondered why you had done an about-turn from your previous posts

I think the point that the conviction rate quoted should statistically be described as an attrition rate is meaningless when it is accepted that the attrition rate is high. And the reporting rates in the first place are low.
I think to quote a conviction rate without the other factors would be more misleading. The attrition rate should be a concern right through the system. The CPS included.

If CPS want women to continue to come forward they should look at the characteristics of the cases successfully prosecuted. I expect they include things rape victims are "supposed" to do. And then perhaps be honest about why a woman with fuck all chance of being considered credible would come forward.

CarrotyO I agree it is an important figure, but we must not casually refer to it as a conviction rate because right away it gives someone who knows anything on the subject an angle with which to argue and deflect from the important issues.

We have to be strong and watertight in our facts because this is a fight we have to win.

What can we do then, government e-petition?

From the Telegraph's reporting on Stern's report:
"In her response, Vera Baird, the Solicitor General, made no mention of six per cent, adding instead: "Rapists must know that they won’t get away with it anymore, whatever the circumstances, even if the woman is someone they know, even if she is drunk.

"Things have changed, and they now stand a more than one in two chance of being convicted. The reality is that 58 per cent of rape cases which reach court result in a conviction for rape or another offence.

"We want all victims to feel confident that when they come forward and report rapes it will be taken seriously and they will be treated with dignity and respect."

Chris Graying, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "The one thing none of us in politics must do is to talk about this issue in a way that stops genuine victims feeling unable to come forward and lodge a complaint."

But Lisa Longstaff, a spokeswoman for Women Against Rape, said the report was a whitewash.

"The reason that six per cent figure is there is because we have fought for it. We want to know how few reported rapes get to conviction," she said.

She said it reflected the failure of the justice system."

Imo that 6% figure is important. Victims are choosing not to report rapes and when they do CPS are choosing not to take them forward for prosecution because under the current system rape just happens to be so difficult to prove.

Carrot your right we do need public inquiry into adult sexual abuse. Specifically they need to look this whole honest and reasonable belief of consent - I'm not sure how many other contrived have this element when they have to prove rape but it seems another way of saying I presumed she consented just because she wasn't fighting back. The only area of law where you can use ignorance of the law to defend yourself.
We now know that most rape victims don't fight back but just freeze even the defence medical expert conceded that during cross examination. I'm so angry about this verdict. There are not enough words in the English language that can describe my fury.