Meanwhile, At The Spire

at


This afternoon.

At the Spire, on Dublin’s O’Connell Street.

Supporters of a #MeToo rally have been gathering since 12.30pm.

A Facebook post about the event states:

The feminist movement is calling a rally in response to the impact of the mistreatment of women in the justice system. This event is open to people of all genders affected by domestic and sexual violence.

Rollingnews

Meanwhile…

In Belfast…

A similar rally is taking place.

Pics: Rollingnews, CE Murphy and Siobhan McAlister and Julie Jameson and Conor

188 thoughts on “Meanwhile, At The Spire

      1. david

        I think david Norris is more of a feminist than her.
        I find her quite cold and pretty masculine ,in fact as hard as nails.
        For the life of me this never again, not me crusade is like the mc carthy witch hunts.
        I just wonder when poor George hook gets his job back for having the courage to speak up regarding common sense.

          1. :-Joe

            Ok, out of serious curiousity, I’ll just throw this one out there…

            I get that if you’re against feminism you’re fundamentally against equality for women(or ignorant of what it’s esentially about) but…

            Do you think the feminist movement is still relevent and able to succeed or does it need to evolve into something else?

            Anyone?

            :-J

          2. Janet, I ate my Avatar

            I would love to think we could all be part of a real humanist movement irrelevant of gender, however I think we are a long way off that.
            The word feminist has become a problem thanks to militant groups and I would like to see a new more inclusive branding for sure that is more educational in its approach at a grass root level.

          3. :-Joe

            It’s not a strange coincedence but that’s what I already believe myself.

            Although, I think the current main problem with saying you’re part of a humanist movement is that a whole other mix of society are going to just assume you’re in a cult.

            :-J

        1. :-Joe

          I’m 100% for freedom of speech and freedom from censorship.

          Let’s never let it be eroded no matter how daft something seems on the face of it.

          Otherwise you just drive it underground and it grows and grows and then eventually explodes like an atom bomb right under us all..

          :-J

      1. david

        Janet point is spot on.
        My sarcastic post shows my contempt of the hijacking of equality by these groups like, not me and times up.
        In all honesty the golden globes was a joke and the witch hunt that these groups persue
        And its all hypocritical
        Hollywood runs on sex and the empowering by wearing a symbolic black dress to show unity but as usual, that black dress was cut to reveal not the brain, but their cosmetically enhanced physique.
        Now why dose one have cosmetic implants,?
        Its to appeal to the males primal urge to ogle big boobies or a sexy bottom., its a primal urge that men have ,but they have to also control that urge .
        In its self what were they secretly doing ?to appeal to the male, wearing cloths which they know is appealing to mans base urges.
        If the feminist wants to be taken seriously its about respect of the person without using sexuality to peruse your agenda, by using your intelligence and talents to do a job better than anyone.
        that’s better and more empowering than a low cut dress pouting filled lips harping on about equality.

          1. david

            Me ,well what points ?or Janet
            Expand.
            Ever read the human zoo by Desmond Morris?
            After reading that you will give up cigars, and never buy or drive a red car

        1. Nigel

          ‘Granted, any woman in the remotest corner of the public eye who wants to be treated with a sugar-pill of respect must find a way to dress which is neither too conservative nor too revealing, not too frumpy nor too frivolous, a way of speaking which is neither “aggressive” nor simpering, and a way of behaving which at no point discomforts any man in her vicinity. It’s almost as if the problem weren’t the behavior or the voice or the clothes but the woman wearing them.’

          https://longreads.com/2018/03/28/who-does-she-think-she-is/

          1. david

            What BS
            Imagine if men went around with penile implants and buttock implants
            I ask you why dose an actress need to get implants and Botox ?
            Why the fuller lips ?
            You tell me.
            Go on explain

    1. Alastair

      It’s not organised by Ruth Coppinger – it’s supported by her for sure, but not organised.

      It’s okay to attend/support even if you don’t care for Ruth Coppinger, or have no control over N.I. law.

      Everyone happy?

        1. Alastair

          It’s not. Read the details of the event. Ruth Coppinger took an existing protest and ran with it.

          1. Nigel

            He’s TRYING to find something BAD to say about this leave him alone it was organised by Ross O’Carroll Coppinger bringing his son to be shot in the rain and that’s that.

          2. Pete Tong

            There are plenty of bad things to say about the rally without mentioning Ruth Coppinger

        2. realPolithicks

          So what if it were organized by Ruth Coppinger, at least she gives a poo poo about what goes on in society and in peoples lives unlike the automatons in FFG whose main preoccupation is with being reelected.

          1. :-Joe

            Ye the circus has brought out a lot of clowns looking to blame and demonise and point fingers by people finding psychadelic patterns in the matrix etc.

            A healthy dose of calm, reflection and thinking before speaking is the tall order of the last couple of days.

            :-J

    1. Nat King Coleslaw

      You’re right Dermie, they are great. Will you have another werthers original?

  1. TheRealJane

    The thing is, whether the verdict was right or wrong seems to be a matter of very contentious debate. Personally, I can’t imagine how they arrived at it, but that’s my personal opinion. What is certain though, is that it has given focus to a very widespread sense that the manner in which rape is prosecuted is deeply unfair to women.

    1. Not On Your Nelly

      …in Northern Ireland. A different country and court system. But facts and bandwagons don’t mix.

      1. TheRealJane

        I think the same misgivings apply on both sides of the border. In neither part of Ireland do women feel that they will get a fair hearing, be treated with respect or see justice. The end of a trial in which a woman had her underwear waved around in public and she was put on trial as a liar rather than the men as rapists and aasaulters has galvanized this feeling.

    2. rotide

      Out of interest, how is the manner in which rape is prosecuted deeply unfair to women?

      I’m not having a go, I’m just questioning what could be done differently. I certainly think that this countries system is better than the UK’s having seen the reaction and coverage of the trial but really that only affects coverage and publicity and I’m guessing this isn’t what you’re talking about.

      How could the system be improved?

      1. TheRealJane

        You really wouldn’t like my answer, but I’d love to see what would happen if men had to prove that women consented rather than forcing women to prove that they didn’t.

        1. Tom

          That’s really a crazy idea. No decent justice system makes a defendant prove their innocence. Do you have any other suggestions?

        2. qwerty123

          So the whole innocent until proven guilty out the window then? I agree actually, would clean up all the scrotes from inner city Dublin in one foul swoop. Prove you’re innocent!!

          1. TheRealJane

            Yes. In the case of rape, explain exactly why you thought the other party consented. They said they didn’t, one would think they have particular information regarding what they personally thought and experienced.

          2. Harry Molloy

            That works if you are of the opinion that it is better that innocent men be jailed than guilty men walk free.

            And that is an opinion to be sure, just not one that is really compatible with what we would consider fundamental freedoms in the west.

          3. qwerty123

            I suppose that would open up the door for malicious accusations. I agree there should be a balance, but in the common law you are innocent until proven guilty. Has served us reasonably well, although I do think the system is biased in the accused favour for all types of crimes.

            Ultimately, unless there is an eye witness, it is one word against another in this case, and the one person who entered the room, a female, said she didn’t see anything that could be construed as a rape.

            Very hard to give a guilty verdict in those circumstances. Them being a holes is an aside and not relevant. (although very relevant in their IRFU contracts)

        3. rotide

          But this doesn’t improve the system in any way, it just flips the burden of proof to the other side. So instead of one set of people getting a very raw deal, it switches to another set of people getting a very raw deal and nothing actually changes.

          I am genuinely interested in what people think can be improved about the system but this isn’t trying to improve the system, its just venting frustration which i can understand.

          1. Alastair

            Perhaps the introduction of a Scottish style ‘not proven’ verdict in cases of probable culpability that doesn’t meet the criteria of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’?

            I doubt many people were persuaded by the testimony that the sex in this case was consensual, or that the woman wasn’t both genuinely distressed on leaving the gaff, and reluctant to go public with what happened. The conduct of the rugby idiots didn’t lend much credence to their concern about the issue of consent. You have to wonder how anyone could believe the accusation of rape was in any way strategic or beneficial to the woman. None of this helps the jury on determining the issue of consent beyond reasonable doubt for a criminal conviction of guilt, but it certainly is enough to find some way of bringing justice to the woman here, who, unless you’re remarkably biased, was supported by much more persuasive evidence,

        4. david

          Maybe lets just ban sex before marriage and make it law that all men and woman must have a legal document signed with a solicitor present and made undertake a drug and drink test on the night.
          The judgement was correct.
          Now we have the accused all with reputations in tatters.
          They will never be picked again for Ireland.
          On a lighter note ,the spire’s nickname is metal Mickey .

          1. Alastair

            Oh boo hoo. They made this bed, and now they lie in it.

            The criminal judgement may have been correct, but it doesn’t remove the obvious culpability of the men charged.

          2. Frilly Keane

            Ok Judgement was correct
            but no way
            can these 4 not be called out on how they treat women

            their parents should be mortified and ashamed
            their sisters etc should disown them

            I’m only too delighted they’ll never (according to you) be picked to play for Ireland again
            Decent, honest, law-abiding, respectful and kind is not a big ask from someone before they are given a green jersey
            or even introduced to the public

            or even allowed mix with the public

          3. rotide

            Decent, honest, law-abiding, respectful and kind
            Unfortunately this counts out a large number of people of both sexes from being allowed to mix with the public.

          4. Frilly Keane

            ah give over
            you know what I was getting at

            Prickantic
            that’s you Rottie
            Prickantic

      2. :-Joe

        I answered this already in the other post yesterday Not Guilty…
        So, based on a lawyer and the CEO of the rape crisis centre’s conversation yesterday evening on newstalk off the ball (ironically)

        1. Complainant relies on court / crown prosecution and is not allowed a legal representative against sometimes multiple defenses.

        2. Policies, procedures and the overall process in general focuses more on testimony over evidence and encourages an adversarial nature of he said / she said.

        3. Police are not trained properly to deal with the complex nature of sexual abuse / rape cases and gathering or handling evidence in the best ways possible and there should be dedicated teams in place to respond properly.

        Also, In norn iron,
        No anonymity for defendants accused = potential media circus…

        The main point I got from it was that 80-90% of rape trials that go the distance to a jury verdict do not get a conviction or 10-20% of rape trials lead to a conviction.

        I’m not saying that should be 50/50 but it’s odd that there would be such a low conviction rate if the prosecution is taking the case to a verdict. Probably down to the nature of complexity in rape cases but seems low for a state prosecution / tax-payers money etc.

        Jurors were not discussed as being an issue but in the #RugbyRapeTrial I found it strange that only 3 of 12 were women and only 10 in total were available to make the final judgement.

        Listen back on newstalk for full details.

        :-J

          1. Cian

            Thanks Joe. But that seems to suggest that there were 279 rape trials in 2016 with 135 convicted. Which is a lot higher than the 10% mentioned above.

          2. Ian

            Cian – please don’t let facts or figures get in the way of a rant about how unfair the system is towards women….

          1. :-Joe

            Ye, it’s counter-intuitive indeed…. I thought 50/50 would be more reasonable but maybe even that is a bad idea.

            I’d love to see someone like Derren Brown do a mock experiment on this with a number of jurys both as normal with mostly men or mostly women and gender balanced etc.

            After that do the same thing over with “scramble suits” and no gender identifiers mentioned only using words that specificly relate to the details and facts of the case in a more scientific way.

            I think anonymous non-gender specific trials will have to happen eventually somehow to remove the biases inherently problematic with all these cases.

            Or maybe our new AI overlords will manage it remotely manipulating the thoughts in our heads.

            :-J

          2. rotide

            “And tell us in your own words what happened when ze placed zis sex organ in your sex organ”

            Yep, absolutely no way to tell which gender is which with that idea.

            Considering the Derren Brown’s entire schtick is misdirection , subterfuge and influencing people, I’m not sure he’s the best example for how our judicial system should work.

          3. :-Joe

            @Rotite / I’m not saying it wouldn’t be complicated but you can find ways to solve various problems like a penis/vagina being mentioned at certain stages in a trial based on the overall design of the process

            Derren Brown has demostrated a lot about how easily it is to manipulate people. I think with his knowledge and trickery he would be useful for showing some interesting results and bringing ideas into consideration.

            You might say maybe he’s not the most reliable for implementing an official scientific study but I’d have him involved to at least get another opinion at some stage.

            Easy to find fault, what do you suggest as a way forward?…

            :-J

          1. :-Joe

            Ye if they were not well known rugby players would as many people have cared?….

            It’s still unfair to less publicly known defendants who might be innocent but get vilified in their local community.

            The circus has been good for debate in hindsight about the legal system but not necessarily for the trial.

            Although you could debate that without the circus it could have been thrown out or buried under the rug unnoticed too.

            :-J

      3. SOMK

        It’s estimated the rate of false rape allegations is in and around 10% further more the pathology of those who cry rape tends to be attention seeking not malicious, so within that 10% who do ‘cry rape’ the alleged perpetrator isn’t a real person but a made up phantom, if you look up cases where women have been convicted for false rape these are the kind of cases you hear, there was one recently where a woman reported she was raped by a stranger foreigner and instead it turned out she’d had consensual sex in a car park with an Irish national. So all in all if a woman makes an allegation of rape the odds are 90% she’s telling the truth and of the 10% who ar lying they tend to blame an anonymous stranger. Further to that the case the defense have to make is relatively easy, if all they have to do is paint a believeable picture that consent occurred and it’s job done, however what the defense never account for is the kind for is why would a woman go from ‘wanting’ to have sex with man x, getting sex with man x then turning around afterward and deciding to lie to the police about it, for no discernible benefit putting themselves through months of stress, why? It’s profoundly erratic arguably sociopathic behavior, far from the image of the Hannibal Lecktor type sociopath with super human forward planning, high intelligence, self control, sociopaths are just as stupid as as non-sociopaths with the bonus of being derranged. The defense never has to account for the bizarre psychology the ar implicitly suggesting of the accuser, all they have to prove is cast enough aspersions that she “wanted it” and it job done, it especially easy of course if the defendant is high status.

        If people were better informed it might help, the culture is certainly improving though a law lecturer related to me when I raised concerns about Ireland’s low level of rape prosecution in the early oughts (as low as 1% according to amnesty) she told me that the rate of prosecution for sexual assault is about the same for any crime where it ultimately boils down to one persons word against the others, the rate of prosecution in Ireland has gone up to about the European average (around 15%), from what she said there was little scope to improve it. Don’t know myself, not a legal expert, consent forms sound potentially mood killing, but I think putting the burden more on the male to prove consent might be an angle and it’s a relatively small price to pay if it helps stamp out this kind of thing, people talking about it more openly helps, but the quality of the debate can be poor. There always extra legal options, though that’s highly risky, perhaps more likely to get a result than going to the cops and I’d imagine it would be very satisfying if you could pull it off, though wouldn’t exactly encourage it.

        With apologies for typos

  2. Harry Molloy

    It is horrific to see the grilling complainants get. but I have yet to hear any alternative as to how a court case can be conducted without such due process?
    If anyone could point me in the direction of an alternate then I’d be interested to read

    1. :-Joe

      Make everyone wear “Scramble suits” and communicate through computer regulated voice modulation where only the facts go back and forward and everyone is completely anonymous.

      Read Philip K. Dick – A Scanner Darkly

      :-J

      1. Nigel

        And keep taking drugs and be police informants until identity fractures completely and you become multiple people.

    1. Rep

      I’m not sure what your point is? Are people not allowed to feel verdicts can be wrong or even if that they understand how the decision was made, do not like the way in which the process was made and the lines of questioning made?

  3. Matt Lucozade: The Only Reader of the Village

    In background: Ad for latest Ross O’Carroll-Kelly play by Irish Times weekly featured Paul Howard on RTE. Nah, nothing to do with attitudes at all.

  4. Not On Your Nelly

    Red top thinking. Scary. The jury were wrong? Or the court system in Northern Ireland is wrong?

    What’s this all about really? Should accusing someone of rape be easier? “I believe her” is a nice and cosy hashtag but there has to be more.

    I’m a stupid man. Help me.

    1. Nigel

      ‘Should accusing someone of rape be easier?’

      If you are the victim of rape, why should it be hard to accuse the person or persons who raped you? (I don’t say ‘prove they’re guilty’ because that will depend entirely on the circumstances.) Is there any other crime where it’s felt that it must be a challenge and an ordeal to bring charges against someone who committed a crime on your person?

      1. Harry Molloy

        It’s the same for every indictable offence, the guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
        The unfortunate thing about rape is that in the absence of physical evidence or an eye witness it is damn near impossible as it comes down to he said she said.
        And I have yet to hear of a better system.

        1. Nigel

          Well, that’s the trial, though even now there are things you can’t say to or ask an alleged rape victim to make them look bad that you used to be able to. So things were worse, but they improved, so there’s nothing to say the treatment of alleged victims couldn’t be improved further without being unfair to the accused. But I’m talking abut making the accusation and trying to get charges brought. People still seem to be acting as though the bar for that should be higher than for other crimes. There’s an attitude that if the accused are innocent until proven guilty, then the accuser must be guilty until proven innocent. And it’s not just the crime of rape, but any other accusation of assault or harassment against women.

          1. Harry Molloy

            Agree with all that, would also state though that while this case would sicken you we need to remember innocent until proven guilty, it’s the principle

          2. Clampers Outside!

            “People still seem to be acting as though the bar for that [rape accusation] should be higher than for other crimes.” I’m not aware of this higher bar, honestly, could you elaborate. I’m with you on the rest by the way…

          3. Nigel

            Just going by comments I’m seeing here and there. The idea that the reputation of the accused should be a deciding factor in whether they should be accused at all. I don’t know how much of a factor it is in the actual legal process – a minimal one, I hope – I’m just talking about a general underlying attitude amongst some that it ought to be.

          4. rotide

            I think legal standards differ very slightly to those applied on twitter and broadsheet comments. Just a guess.

          5. Clampers Outside!

            Fair enough Nigel, people do lose the run of themselves, and if they do believe there is a higher bar, I would put that down to an emotive reaction rather than any fact of due process.
            I don’t believe it is as prevalent as you may think. That said, it’s an understandable reaction, but one best not fed or stoked.

          6. Nigel

            I am, perhaps hamfistedly, trying to draw that distinction between actual legal standards and general attitudes as revealed by some of the comments surrounding the case on Broadsheet and twitter and apparently doing a really bad job of it.

          7. Nigel

            Yeah, Clamps, it’s just an impression I’m getting, not that there is a higher bar, but that there ought to be? Perhaps a mistaken one.

          8. rotide

            Ah i totally get that Nigel.

            Actually, I think we should all be using Rep’s Bicycle theft analogy. It might allow for a discussion with cooler heads

    2. some old queen

      That trail was very unfair to the girl. There was four defendant solicitors picking her story apart and they were not independent of each other. I expect the second built on what the first and so on. By the time the fourth had finished, reasonable doubt had been achieved. If it had only been one in the dock it would have been quite a different result I expect.

      Also a general point. It is the state who prosecutes, not the victim. The victim is only a witness and has no control over how many are prosecuted, the strategy or even the competence of the barrister.

        1. some old queen

          My main question is why were four prosecuted?

          It immediately loaded the dice and left a situation where if one was convicted, all would have had to be convicted. The strategy adopted by the state prosecution was questionable to say the least.

          1. rotide

            I’d tend to agree with you there. I’m not sure why the fourth guy was even included in the prosecution and surely they’d be willing to let the third guys allegation ‘slide’ to make sure that only the two actually accused of rape were on trial.

            Then again, I’ve no idea what sort of legal wrangling went on before the trial started. You’d be pretty sure that the police tried to make deals with them all to give evidence for a reduced sentance and maybe the defence succesfully petitioned to keep them all together.

          2. some old queen

            In order to secure successful prosecutions, the state make calls as to the likelihood of convictions all the time. But in this case they done the exact opposite by giving strength in numbers.

            As for legal wrangling, charges against the flasher and the block head could have been dropped at anytime. It just doesn’t make sense.

      1. Rep

        Its a strange set up. If my bike got robbed and the guy was caught on my bike, I wouldn’t expect be up on the stand trying to prove to a jury that he did actually rob my bike and I did not randomly give it to him.

        In a rape trial it really feels that, since the accused is innocent until proved guilty, its almost as if the victim is assumed not to be telling the truth and has to convince the judge/jury that they are not lying.

        1. Cian

          If the guy caught with your bike said that you consented then it would be a he siad-he said trial.
          And if there was a good reason that he may have got your permission – e.g ha was a mate, or you often gave your bike to other people. Then yes you would be on the stand.

  5. Tom

    They’re protesting and making lots of noise but what do they actually want?
    What do they want to change?

    1. Matt Lucozade: The Only Reader of the Village

      Nothing. That’s the new establishment in the rain.

  6. McBlurgle

    I’m just glad that they were all able to fit in the court room to hear the several weeks of details of the case, and aren’t just relying on whatever snippets made for tasty headlines.

    1. Alastair

      The testimony was covered at length over all the days of the trial. Not really a case of ‘snippets’.

      1. Not On Your Nelly

        So the jury was unanimously wrong? We should decide guilt with a twitter poll. It’s what the people want.

        1. Anomanomanom

          Don’t you know the people who always have time on their hands for a good old March and a chant are always right. Wish I had all that free time, but you know work takes up a lot if time.

          1. Anomanomanom

            Because I dont work in gulag, I am allowed take breaks, although this reply is while i “use” the toilet.

        2. Alastair

          We should be able to hold people culpable for their actions on the basis of evidence that might not meet criminal conviction burden of doubt. Unless you think that OJ Simpson didn’t murder Nicole Simpson, despite the evidence pointing towards that over-arching probability, then you need to acknowledge that criminal conviction burden of proof is not the sole mechanism for assigning culpability for offenders.

          It’s not a case of the rule of law vs the mob, it’s a case of trying to find a mechanism for justice that doesn’t require the humiliation of a victim with little chance of meeting the criteria for a criminal conviction. The vast majority of rape cases never result in a conviction. Something is therefore broken with the system.

          1. :-Joe

            Ooohh.. slippery slope there… as bad as the system is that would be going backwards.

            Look, I get what you’re thinking and I found it strange that if you believe any of the four defendants then at least one of the others is not telling the truth and if you believe the complainant then they are all guilty.

            It still doesn’t take into account all the possible factors of memory, mistakes and random factors that form the whole picture and evidence of what happened before you add testimony, denial and collusion etc.

            I’m suprised they didn’t get some kind of suspended sentence or at least a warning for the two main offenders or something else but the system of law in this case is what it is until it’s changed and improved. If they are indeed guilty then the system is deeply flawed but we know it is already.

            I think OJ’s son may have done the murder or was at least involved but it’s like who killed JFK when you get stuck into it.

            :-J

          2. Alastair

            Assuming you’re not joking (?) – Nope – OJ killed her. That much was evident to everyone who had an ounce of cop-on. But that cop-on wasn’t enough for a criminal conviction, only a civil case conviction. Rape victims shouldn’t have to try and find some sort of solace in proxy civil cases that offer nothing but financial payback, and they are evidently not being served by the existing criminal court mechanism.

          3. :-Joe

            Ye, I believe he most probably killed her but there is also evidence from an investigation by private detectives to suggest that the son was involved and that it may have been a rage knife attack started by him, OJ was at least present, most likely involved and tried to cover his tracks on his own.

            The serious documentaries are out there by the investigators and I think there is some truth to them but at best my comments are speculative.. hence the JFK remark.

            I agree, rape trials should work a lot better for sure.

            :-J

      2. curmudgeon

        Because it was reported non stop in lurid detail. And now four innocent lads have had their reputations and careers ruined.

  7. Jackdaw

    How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

    None they’d just set up a support group for “Women in the dark”

    1. :-Joe

      Today’s most mentally retarded, ignorant and insensitive comment sponsored by the good people at Broadsheet.ie goes to (Drum-Roll)

      Ta-Daaa… “” Jackdaw “”

      Tell him what he’s won Folks…..

      :-J

      1. Daisy Chainsaw

        Visibility. Support for a woman put through the ringer for 8 days for nothing. Disgust for the #topshaggers and spitroasters who treated a woman as a sextoy without her consent.

  8. Jesus Wept

    A mate and I had sex with a consenting female friend last night.Won’t be the first or last time, as we all enjoyed ourselves immensely.We’ll definitely arrange fo meet up again.We all enjoyed it you see.Not sure why I referred to her as a pig being spit roasted the following day.

    1. SOQ

      Well there is six sausages in a pack so why not go the whole hog and entertain each other too?

  9. Listrade

    Weird thing about court cases and the legal system. Take the Jobstown trial. Some people didn’t like that verdict and decided that even though they were acquitted they were still guilty, even going so far as to how a separate incident in the same area involving Lidl went some way to prove their guilt.

    And yet now we must respect the law and the process. Oh and because they were found not guilty the accuser should be named (she already has) and probably locked up for a false accusation. But not in the case of the Jobstown prosecution, no need to investigate that. No one gets accused of a false accusation then.

    And where were all women commenting and supporting this girl when the trial was on? I mean sure, we had weeks of the media and commentators here saying how those supporting Jobstown influenced the jury with their tweets about demonstrable lies by the gardai. But wimin should have been supporting her all along. Even if they were.

    Seems to be a certain overlap in those who held such conflicting views.

    So yeah, weird thing about court cases. Seems we’re mostly full of bull and change our opinions on the legal system without shame depending on which side we’ve decided to pin our badge on.

    1. Harry Molloy

      my opinion is that it is always best to put your faith in the jury, none of us have been exposed to what a jury has been in any type of case, or considered a verdict as much. It’s not perfect but it’s not all that bad.

      I know a lot of people took comfort from the constitutional convention for similar reasons (don’t know why the pro choice side aren’t pushing this a lot more)

      as for what “people” are saying, ah well, internet is full of knobs who probably haven’t thought about it all that hard and are just killing time on the jacks

    2. Frilly Keane

      Well Lissie
      everyone knew who the defendents in the Jobstown trials were
      ‘cept for the protected underage lad

      so
      theres that

      btw, I’m glad I don’t know who this girl is
      my heart would just break if I saw her face and knew her name and other personal details

  10. Friscondo

    There’s something deeply wrong with the prosecution of the offence of rape. I’ve gone out with three women who told me credible, detailed accounts of being raped. None of them considered reporting for different reasons, but all felt they wouldn’t be believed. There is no reason for me to doubt their accounts and certainly no motive for them to lie to me. Since then I’ve been with my wife 20 years, so haven’t been close enough to a woman for her to confide something like that in me. So three is an awful bloody lot, unless I was some sort of freakish outlier statistically. It’s scary raising a daughter. Yesterday’s verdict no matter what your thoughts on it will only make it more unlikely that women will report this offence.

    1. Alastair

      If it ensures that those idiots don’t ever wear green jerseys again, and offers some comfort to the woman involved, it’ll have done something good. Also reasserts that this sort of shite isn’t going to be brushed under the carpet any more. Fair play to them.

      1. filly buster

        ah totally. it’s great to have a show of force, so other victims, and other rapists can see that there are more of us. more people who can’t abide by this than people who can. but i think it would’ve made more sense to do it in belfast.

        1. ReproBertie (SCU)

          There’s one in Belfast too but the players represent the entire country when they pull on the green jersey.

          1. ReproBertie (SCU)

            Apparently these are happening in Cork, Galway, Limerick, Carlow and Derry as well as Dublin and Belfast.

    2. ReproBertie (SCU)

      People were obviously affected by the testimony and looking for a way to come to terms with that. Even if this is nothing more than a big show of empathy for the girl at the centre of the trial then what harm has it done?

        1. ReproBertie (SCU)

          I get you. The legal system is very different but even though it’s a different jurisdiction we’ve had the trial in our papers, on our radio stations and on our TV for weeks. It was in Belfast but it was here too.

          1. filly buster

            oh completely. and i’m glad that at the very least, as little consolation as it is, but that the poor girl can see how many people are with her. our system is also very lax on rapists, if they do get convicted. i was just thinking if the march was up in belfast where it all happened, it might be more likely to effect decision makers up there. but sure i dunno, it’s all very sad. the poor woman going thru all that. horrific trial process. at least she gets to keep her anonymity to some degree.

          2. some old queen

            Apart from the defendant’s remaining anonymous, in what way would that trail have been different here?

  11. Alex francis

    I’m dissapointed you didn’t publish my comment about women of ireland being a joke. it’s censorship gone mad.
    Can I abridge it?
    women of ireland are a joke.

        1. Frilly Keane

          no
          I rather see you how you’d cope with nothing but lads around ya for the next 12 months in an Army Barracks somewhere first

          1. Alex francis

            why fupp Off? Nigel. I said Irish women are a joke. my joke was censored. do you disagree?

          2. Nigel

            No. Your opinion on women or anyone at all is worthless. You told Starina to shut up and take it. For that you may climb face-first up the Devil’s bunghole.

          3. Alex francis

            incorrect Nigel.
            I was censored by Broadsheet in the telling of a ribald joke about the state of Irish women. The ghost of starina took it upon themselves to presuppose the gist of the gag and posted ‘it’s censorship to expect us to shut up & take it’.
            I replied ‘you have, you do and you will’.
            this wasn’t meant to be a singular reply to the ghost of starina. It was directed at all women in ireland.
            I’ll go further so there’s no confusion and change ‘You’ to ‘they’ (they = Irish women).
            They have taken it- take your pick.. The
            laundries. Kerry babies. Ann Lovett.
            They do take it- the rape case in the north. Glass ceiling. Female representation in the Dail.
            They will take it- the electorate ( thats me a big horrible man with hairy balls) will decide their free will AGAIN on 25th May.
            It’s time women in Ireland got off their holes and got the job done. I know that’s probably unpleasant but that’s the way it is.

          4. Nigel

            A mansplainer mansplains. Thanks for the mansplanation. I’m sure the women of Ireland just needed to hear that to finally get it.

          5. Alex francis

            ‘mansplaining’ your online chums will have a titter at that, but that silly auld tripe talk doesn’t make you any less incorrect son.
            Irish women need to cop on big time and I’m man enough to say that.

      1. petey

        it would be censorship to prevent the demo. it’s not censorship to have an expectation. all that needs doing is to carry on regardless of anyone’s expectation.

  12. Not On Your Nelly

    Consent… consent… consent.

    All the media types giving it welly about consent.

    Was that brought up in this trial or just media types doing that hot topic spiel?

    And can someone tell when consent can be withdrawn? I’m sure before and during the act is what we all understand. But can consent be withdrawn 12 hours later?

    Asking for a friend.

    1. MayJay

      If you’re asking, you need to look at yourself. How about asking if she’s enjoying it? Novel idea to you, I’m guessing.

  13. SOQ

    People have raised the jurisdictional issue but those men were professionally representing Ireland. The difference between ROI and NI is that the victim can have their own legal representation.

    I am certain that most within NI will support that change now.

  14. some old queen

    People have raised the jurisdictional issue but those men were professionally representing Ireland. The difference between ROI and NI is that the victim can have their own legal representation. I am certain that most within NI will support that change now.

    1. Matt Lucozade: The Only Reader of the Village

      “People have raised the jurisdictional issue but those men were professionally representing Ireland”… as a rugby team – at events that uses a Phil Coulter song as “national anthem” in case they offend someone. Sorry sweetie, jurisdiction is a legal definition you might want to look up.

      1. some old queen

        Is the difference that a crown prosecution will not allow the victim to defend themselves?

  15. Charlescharliecharles

    If they were found guilty, would it be acceptable to have a #we believe them protest ?
    Those lads lives are tainted forever

    1. some old queen

      A rape victim goes through the Spanish inquisition from 4 very expensive barristers and you are bothered about what again?

      1. Matt Lucozade: The Only Reader of the Village

        You can post sober this evening. Pubs are open for Good Friday this year. Last night’s outpourings were laugh a minute Catholic panic. Buckfast finished early?

        1. some old queen

          Oh ffs, answer the question.

          Is the difference that in NI a rape victim cannot have their own legal representation?

          Anyone?

  16. Tucker Done

    One possibility is an app via which two top, or bottom, shaggers could record their consent to have sexual relations. Needn’t be binding but if a claim was made, and the consent app confirmation wasn’t present, the assumption would be taken that consent was not in place and an alleged rapist would need to demonstrate he/she had consent in some other way

  17. Rule of Law

    If our own legislators can’t respect the law in a foreign jurisdiction, what hope is there for your average dumb twitter/facebook dwellers ? Bored now of the stupidity of these wear a geansai, sign a petition, tweet the inane brigade. Facts, due process .. nah let’s form a lynch mob and showcase our stupidity to the world. And you lot wonder why Trump thrives. What a sick , sad world we live in

  18. Rule of Law

    and the mother with her young daughter. Why on earth would she bring her to such a march. Was she privy to the salacious details that were served up for our daily consumption?

Comments are closed.