Ulster Rugby trial -continued

[ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo]

New thread.

The application was listed in front of Judge Smyth earlier today, when a barrister representing the media outlets claimed there was no basis for reporting restrictions to remain in place. Gerry Simpson QC said: "This is a matter which we say should be dealt with very quickly.”

Stephen Toll, who represented Mr Jackson during the trial, also spoke during the brief hearing, and said: "I do not think we have proper focus on the issues because the media are refusing to say what applications they are wanting to rule on.

"They can stand on their rights and that is their prerogative. We may have a concern about the Convention rights (human rights) of the defendants and other persons that may be affected."

This prompted Mr Simpson to tell the court: "The media are not refusing to do anything. I have no idea because I do not intend to ask the media. That’s the wrong question to ask." The right question, the barrister suggested, was to ask if there was a lawful bias for the restrictions remaining in place.

Agreeing this was the "correct question" that needed to be addressed, Judge Smyth said she would listen to the legal arguments on Wednesday afternoon.

Thanks for that.

I will be at Ravenhill / Kingspan on Friday evening. Anyone else?

Apparently the petition to reinstate the players is growing

I can’t even find it on change.org anymore when I search?

No, I’ve searched every which way I can think of, it’s not there anymore. I think whoever told you it’s growing is misinformed. It looks like it has been removed.

I can't find it either. I hope it was hacked!

I think I read somewhere it had been removed?!

I was shocked to see someone i know in RL sharing the petition on Facebook. A lady i know fairly well.
I tried clicking on the link to see who else had signed it - but the link doesn't work anymore.

The real reason that comments about race or religion would be dealt with, as mentioned above, is simply that we have laws in place protecting people from such comments. We don’t have any laws protecting people from misogyny. No one believes that the law has done away with racism or religious hatred, but it does give victims some protection and some means of redress.
We need a law to make misogyny illegal too.

Pompholy We do have legislation in the civil sphere to protect women against harrassment. Its the Equality Act 2010.

That protects people in the workplace, and when receiving goods and services, from discrimination on the basis of certain defined protected characteristics. These include sex, marital status and and pregnancy (all of which affect women disproportionately).

The Equality Act does not prioritise certain protected characteristics ie it does not stipulate that sex discrimination is somehow less important than race or religion.

I think it is odd that this "digital marketing expert" just accepts and repeats wholesale, the misogynistic assumption that derogatory comments are more acceptable if they are about women than about, for example, Muslims or Chinese people.

I accept that these women were not employees of Ulster Rugby but all sponsors of Ulster or Irish Rugby which have Equality and diversity policies, should be deeply troubled about a culture and an environment that is hostile towards women.

Hate crimes should certainly include acts motivated by hatred against women and there are some moves in this area.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-37405732

Thanks Raven, that's good info.
I hope that the kind of moves promoted in Nottinghamshire can be adopted more widely. At present I think it is far more likely that someone would be prosecuted for shouting an offensive comment at a woman for wearing a hijab, than someone who shouted at a woman about the size of her breasts etc.

There's another petition against them playing. Spread the word
www.change.org/p/irish-rugby-football-union-paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-should-not-represent-ulster-or-ireland-at-rugby

Otto Putland, the swimmer who was on trial for rape, has been found not guilty. Because, you know, that’s the only verdict in rape cases, apparently.

His jury took two hours to decide that his version of events, that she was fine with everything that happened, was more persuasive than hers, where her friend testified to going to collect her from the house and that she was crying and whispering to herself in distress.

I give up. I honestly give up. I just feel as if it is pointless having laws against rape, having concepts of consent, any of it. It’s just useless. In the end, it doesn’t matter what happens to women. I think it was Germaine Greer who said “Women have very little idea of how much men hate them” and these two cases are really making me feel that.

Sorry. I’m just tired of it all. Really tired.

Onlyliving - me to

That dam petition to reinstate them is back up again

Another day, another not guilty verdict. Is it just sportsmen who get a free pass to have sex with anyone their friends have been with or is it the same for non-famous men?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43711395

Yes, that’s the Otto Putland case I was referring to a couple of posts ago, AName. Depressing, isn’t it? Made me think of Ched Evans.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot and wondering if it would be beneficial to categorise rape, in the same way as we do ‘taking a life’ (eg: murder, man slaughter, involuntary man slaughter...)

Forgive me this is not a polished thought, and I am mindful I may be speaking out of turn.

But it strikes me that if ‘murder’ was the only charge available people would get away with killing others left right and centre, because many of these cases are not premeditated/don’t fit the criteria needed for a murder conviction.

By categorising rape in the same way, where an ‘not premeditated rape’ (again PLEASE forgive my crude unpolished language but I really want to get some thoughts on this and don’t know how to write it) eg a man being too drunk to ensure he had consent, would still carry a conviction, but for a slightly lesser charge. So, instead of a ‘not guilty’ that gets translated over time to ‘innocent’ he always has the conviction on his record?

The defence barrister's closing argument and the attitudes that still seem prevalent smack of the old myth that as a woman once you have slept with someone and lost your "virginity" that you are fair game to be "seduced" (raped) by anyone. A fallen woman kind of notion.

it really has to start being widely accepted that you can freeze, feel disorientated, not behave totally rationally (scream the house down) when being sexually assaulted. Defence Barristers constantly trot out and reinforce the myth that "you should have screamed" or run. Experts are called to lend credence to the "frozen" response but people still seem to dismiss it.

In both these cases (Ulster Rugby trial and Otto Putland) the "should have screamed/run" argument has been forefront in the defence and the "regret sex" after the first guy's "mate/s" have become involved.

Just been on FB the BT page and in the comments section some woman is claiming that the girl has made rape allegations before

Something else the jury should know when there is a witness, things are not always the same, in fat things that look like one thing can be the opposite.

I'm sure we have all seen a film or TV show where one actor is strangling another and the actor being strangled has his/her hands on the wrists of the stranglee.

Except we have NEVER seen that.

The actors are actually doing the opposite, the actor with their hands around the 'victim's' neck is actually pulling away and the one being strangled is pulling the other's hands closer.

And now an add to reinstate them

www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/belfast-court-to-consider-lifting-reporting-restrictions-on-belfast-rape-trial-836751.html

Nottakenusername I had a similar thought on another thread in feminist chat. Although I probably expressed it badly.
I have since seen someone suggest similar on Facebook.
It would be interesting to hear thoughts.

I wanted to run it past a knowledgeable friend but I am finding myself quite disappointed by trying to discuss this case is real life.

It’s a very delicate subject area. But looking at this case particularly, if there was a manslaughter equivalent for rape, I wonder if the accused would still have been acquitted? I’m addition, would a judgement of the manslaughter equivalent of rape made the victim feel like justice had in some part been done, or would it be an insult?