It's not rape if you're wearing lacy knickers.

This is horrific.

We are marching backwards in time.

The policewoman was mortified. She has been great with everything else. She had to ask. Just like they need to go through all my medical records and counselling notes. They also checked with social services that I wasn't known to them. I also had to give details of all other times i have been assaulted. The court process is bloody awful. The police are being as supportive as they can. I think it's more the CPS who need it all.

I also think it is crap that it isn't actually my court case, the Crown prosecute, I'm just a witness. I get very limited information so nothing influences my evidence. Meanwhile he gets to see everything. We all know these types of offences are more about control than sex. He still seems much more in control of the situation than me

Ohmy . They apologised, but asked anyway as it was still very important to them to know wtaf.
I am sorry you experienced this, did you feel you had to answer that?

ohmy

The police apologised as they asked me what I was wearing at the time of my assault. I was a similar age of the girl in the current case. I was helping out at an event similar to a brownie camp. Wtf did they think i was wearing and why was it relevant.

I don't even want to look at their smug expressions, what are the doing holding high office and securing massive pay rates, without doing their job of protecting the public. Protecting women from rape!!
Well named and shamed Frank

...but the law that's letting them get off compounds the issue. It's bad enough they deny, but to be supported in law by that.

Half considering making a thread to collect all the ridiculous defences men use tp get off (for rape and murder)
It's disgusting and there is a pattern.

A 27-year-old man who denied raping a 17-year-old in county Cork wept loudly as he was found not guilty by a jury at the Central Criminal Court in Cork.

Where did this happe? Sorry if I've missed that

I'm a criminal advocate in England. I can thankfully say I've never came across this here. The judge would haul you over hot coals and rightfully so.

Is there a route of public investigation into the basis of this ruling? It's an open court hearing for what reason, what rights do those members of the public watching it have? What's the point in the public being there?

Jesus christ.

Do you know what, due to the laws of our country (and Ireland's I assume?) and the fact that the burden of proof is on the accuser and it has to be 'proved beyond reasonable doubt' that he did not have reasonable belief in consent, it is hard to get a rape conviction. And I do understand that.

But the knickers thing, what the actual fucking fuck? What do her knickers have to do with anything? Some people will only wear nice knickers, they only buy nice lacey ones so that's all they wear. And loads of thongs just have lace on them anyway. I am fucking raging that the judge called upon this to be taken into account? What the fuck?

Mrs O’Connell could show us all her knickers so we can all see what “don’t put your penis in me” knickers look like.

So, going by the logic of wearing lacy thongs, if she had been wearing big 'granny knickers' it would have been rape?

Aahhh but then why was she out alone at that time

Those granny pants also hold your tummy In so clearly she wanted to look nice for someone.

And well, that thong in her bag she was planning on putting on when she got to her boyfriends house puts her back to square one really too...

Back to sports bras, stained ripped underwear and not washing perhaps?

That and staying home .

How dare we go out vaginaring all over the place

We need clarity on the underwear. Perhaps Ms Elizabeth O’Connell could write some guidance

So, going by the logic of wearing lacy thongs, if she had been wearing big 'granny knickers' it would have been rape?

The judgement is disgusting.

This crap about the lacy knickers would mean you are never allowed to change your mind.

That statement denies that you can say no at any point, something I had foolishly believed was set in law, so how can anyone legitimately say,and everywhere accept this blatantly false to the whole world supposition.
Perhaps one should carry a selection of knickers and be given time to change underwear...just to make things clear. What new evil is this??!!?

Even if a woman had gone out with the intent to get laid, as men do frequently. Why would that in anyway mean she would want to accuse the person of rape?

Or mean it was OK for any man to have sex with her?

Does any man who goes with the intent to pull also have to be open the fact that a man might want to assault him due to his sexy pants?

There's literally no logic behind any of these myths and yet people around the world seem happy to buy them with no critical thinking whatsoever.

This is disgusting. But not surprising.

They just don’t see rape as an actual crime that should result in a man going to prison do they? We’re expected to put up and shut up like we did in the olden days and like many women do now in different cultures due to ‘shame’. And men wonder why we’re so wary of them - this is why. This is the potential consequence of being near the wrong man at the wrong time and then having no justice for what happens to you.

I said on the other thread that juries should be told that a man who goes out wearing pants that allow easy access to his penis shoudl be presumed to have gone out with the intent to rape, because otherwise why would they need to be able to get to their genitals with one hand quickly and easily?

Oh god that poor girl. I believe you love.

I’m slightly in shock at the notion that a 17 year old girl, having sex for the first time, enthusiastically consented to being dragged down a muddy alley with a hand at her throat. Is that the message lacy knickers give out? I wonder how many men having sex for the first time enthusiastically consent to being dragged down a muddy alley with a hand at their throat. As a PP says, what is the male equivalent of lacy underwear?

Ah. Not there. Doesn’t exist. Only the women who are still, at 17 years old in 2018, judged by their choice of underwear to have consented to the sort of sex most people would run a mile from. As for the disgusting, no doubt porn-soaked specimen that (allegedly ) did this to her - I hope you rot in hell you horrible bastard.