I feel so angry to read this...

[NotTakenUsername]

...and I can’t vent properly on Facebook because I just don’t have the words required to compete with comments like, “well why didn't She scream...?” and “it’s atrocious how those boys have been treated...”

I’m so ANGRY. What on Earth are very middle class girls...? What does that even mean? What does that encompass?
Parental income? As presumably all underage if they are girls, no? Personal income? ‘Nice’ girls...?

Talk me down.

I’m so sorry for all those who have shared their experiences here.
Evidence should of course be tested & challenged. But when defence barristers use what they know to be myths about rape then surely they are deliberately trying to mislead the jury.
It should not be allowed.
As I’ve said before, I do think prosecutors could do more to challenge these myths.
I also think most lawyers believe that the system works fine as it is and us mere mortals just don’t understand it.

^But when defence barristers use what they know to be myths about rape then surely they are deliberately trying to mislead the jury.
It should not be allowed.^
As I’ve said before, I do think prosecutors could do more to challenge these myths.
I also think most lawyers believe that the system works fine as it is and us mere mortals just don’t understand it.

Totally agree with all this.

Evidence should of course be tested & challenged. But when defence barristers use what they know to be myths about rape then surely they are deliberately trying to mislead the jury. It should not be allowed.

They know full well that they only need to sow a seed of doubt in the mind of the jury. Then the judge will say 'only convict if you are sure they are guilty' and the jury will probably acquit. It's disgusting and these lawyers will hide behind the excuse that they are simply ensuring the accused has a fair trial and that it's better to let 100 guilty men walk free than send an innocent one to prison. That is certainly true, 100s of guilty men are walking free every day.

I don't know why jury trial is held up as some beacon of fairness. The ordinary person on the street has deeply held prejudices and I wouldn't trust them with something like this. It is well known that criminals will elect jury trial if possible because it is so likely they will get off. The jury has no accountability- they don't even need to give reasons for their verdict. They could be sitting in their room tossing a coin to determine the verdict for all anyone knows. No consequences whatsoever if they make the wrong call.

I wish for once we heard a prosecutor saying that since the defendant talked about getting lucky at the weekend he was going to make it happen regardless. I wish carrying a condom made it obvious you were going to use it regardless of finding someone willing, I being attractive and popular meant saving face and proving you could enter anyone.
But they never will. Especially the condom one. That would be almost all men out at the weekend. You know like high heels and mini skirts.
NB: I know the attractive rapist and drunk mini skirt wearing young woman is as much a myth but it illustrated my point.

Also I went to a nice middle class girls school. Quite a famous one full of famously nice girls. Wouldn’t like to repeat what they thought was socially acceptable behaviour. It definitely includes rape though.

@nottaken i have had 2 threads deleted for potentially influencing the case (even tho we were just discussing what's being openly reported). This is the deletion message from the second thread.
I will be starting another when the verdicts are in and I will have a lot to say! I will also be writing to my MP/CPS about how this case has been handled and am open to starting some kind of campaign. I'm fuming

Ah ok I misunderstood. They have deleted threads about this specific case?

In that case I hope all poster will exercise extreme restraint and consideration on the views they share at the moment as this is a conversation worth having.

How utterly disgusting that the same old bullshit myths are continually allowed to peddled in rape trials.

I may be about to break my own request, MNHQ please delete this comment and not the whole thread if not allowed:

Without naming names and in a totally hypothetical scenario:

One man is having sex (consensual or otherwise) with one woman and a second man contacts the first man via text to ask if there is any chance of a threesome.

Does that text imply the second man believes the first man to have some level of ownership over the woman and that sexual encounter?

Is it assumed that first man would unilaterally take a decision and respond with permission to join or not?

OR is it assumed that this apparently respectful and upstanding citizen is more likely to have a conversation with this woman seeking further consent (if initial consent had in fact been given) to involve another man in their encounter?

If man two subsequently joins in, will he, after asking permission via text assume that consent is from all parties or ensure that there is active consent from everyone involved...?

Just a gentle musing. A wondering, if you will.

I'd start a new tgread about it. As a feminist I think it implies the men are the woman as property and aren't bothered about her wishes but I'm not sure what juries/members of the public think.
That was also a factor in the Ched Evans case

I may be old fashioned but honestly the notion of that kind of scenario being even remotely ok is just incredible to me. I hate to sound prudish but if this is the kind of thing that is even being floated as “mainstream” now then I am very proud to be old school in my views.

I wish I could ensure I will protect my daughter from such thuggish attitudes to sex.

Has anyone seen the judges comments to the jury today? Not sure if I’m allowed to link to them. Or even if allowed to discuss them.

I’m going to look now...

If they've been publicly reported then of course you can link to it.

www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-rape-14449155

And the judge is a woman. Ffs.

I read something that said she has to really cover her back in case of an appeal.

“You may have heard of sexual behaviour you find distasteful but you must not jump to conclusions that a criminal offence has been committed by the defendants.”

I acknowledge that she does have a point. But where are the balancing warning remarks about the character assassination of the victim? Were they unreported or left unsaid?

It should be against thd law to ask a woman or a girl what she was wearing in a rape case. It's irrelevant and plays into the popular myth of a girl "leading a man on".
It's disgusting in this day and age.
Old women in care homes get raped. Women in burkas ffs.
I did scream and fight when viciously attacked as a youngster, it possibly saved my life and I am glad I was able to.
If I had frozen ( equally possible) that wouldn't have been evidence that I was well up for being raped and murdered would it?
It's just unbelievable how nothing changes in the way rape trials,and reporting on rape, are conducted.

NotTakenUsername, yes, they've deleted at least four threads about this case, none of which were assuming guilt, but were expressing disgust at the text messages and sympathy for the ordeal the girl was going through in the courtroom.

Everyone was very careful to stick to facts reported and agreed, yet the threads were taken down. I suppose MNHQ have to be careful with an ongoing court case, but I was disappointed because, like this thread, many courageous women shared their stories and it must be hurtful for them to see their words zapped.

to everyone who has first hand experience of this.

Conor Gallagher's twitter feed is a good way to follow this.

There are a few other feeds, but they allow comments many of which have left me wanting to smash the computer screen.

They didn't just ask her what she was wearing. They brought her underwear into court. Twice. The actual fucking underwear.

I’m outraged. I don’t know what has happened but this case and especially those remarks about middle class girl she has lit a fire in my belly and I’m so angry.

And at the risk of being deleted:

"To convict Jackson/Olding of rape/oral rape jurors must be sure of three elements (Doubt over any means acquittal):
▪️That penetration occurred, however slight
▪️That the woman did not consent
▪️That the men did not reasonably believe she consented"

They will be acquitted, because they believe she consented. It never fucking occurred to them that she wouldn't. It probably still doesn't.

The system is fucked. They should have to be able to prove she consented [incoherently furious]

"She told jurors that young men may use language and expressions which are common parlance among their own group but may not reflect their own views.

She said men can brag and try to impress their friends with stories about their sexual prowess but these might not reflect reality."

Poor diddums, being pressured to say things they wouldn't ordinarily say because of peer pressure.

FUCK'S SAKE