This afternoon.
Dublin city centre.
Protesters, including Ruth Coppinger TD, above, marched from City Hall to the Department of Justice in support of victims of sexual assault and rape.
Sam Boal/Rollingnews
Previously: Meanwhile, At the Spire
Sponsored Link
That cardboard hat has really convinced me something has to be done.
Fair play to all involved but jaysis the cardboard hat
No means no.. ok get that.
Silence COULD mean No?
What’s a fella to do?
Ask. It’s not tricky.
Disclaimer forms by the bed from now on.
It must be hard for you pretending not to understand.
aaah…y’know I was about to write a few lines to explain but I’m a bit exhausted…if you’re seriously asking a question like that:
1) if you’re of an adult age maybe seek out some professional relationship counseling
2) if you are younger person start a conversation with your parents/guardian
3) if you’re just a bored troll well I can’t help you
Well Martie if tis 3)
Even I have the answer
Just satisfy yerself with yerself Diddy
It rhymes with crank btw
@Diddy – ask your sister.
Straw poll for y’all.
*every* time that you have had ‘consenting’ sex did you both
a) give explicit verbal consent; and
b) get explicit verbal consent?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m guilty of not verbally consenting or always getting verbal consent.
I’d be willing to bet there’s a lot of potential rapists in the country with that definition
I cannot comment on the female side but pretty sure that those of us on the man team(pun) know that when someone says they were raped, they are to be believed.
Why is it so difficult for a woman in similar circumstances?
It is a valid question as the reason behind asking is exactly why these boys were acquitted. Because if you really think about it …right back from when ye were just young boys all the way on through to grown men …there most likely have been times when you came on stronger than the girl/woman wanted – or flirted with a subordinate colleague…or posted / bantered dehumanising commentary about a woman – you most definitely have been exposed (whether by accident or by choice) to dehumanizing pornography and in most cases you backed away if instructed,but by that same token persisted if not outright rejected.
This trial has raised this question for you – what you thought was just a flirt, just giving it a try, a gropped tit, a dropped hand, a slapped arse, some chat-group banter, some unexpectedly exploitative porn, maybe a date that was too drunk (but sure…) – but these have all been viewed from your personal experience – completely separated from that of the girl/woman involved – and you are now wondering if maybe you have ‘misinterpreted’ these shared experiences (as these rugby boys claim to have done) – these experiences now connect you directly to the acquitted and because you can relate to their defense ( of harmless fun ) – because she didnt cry, she didnt fight, she complied (complience is not consent by the way) – you are afraid you might be just like them and so to find them guilty you would have to first admit your doubts about yourself. Which is why they walked free. Because the men (and women) in that jury could not accept they could possibly relate to a rapist.
Interesting point, well made.
A very good summary of why this is a discussion that needs to be had. I wasn’t taught to have open lines of communication in sexual situations because the social landscape wasn’t quite there when I was growing up. But I think a solid understanding of what consent means and how it works in a sexual context is necessary for both men and women.
Good book:
Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media: Noam Chomsky
ML
Manufacturing consent is about mass media manipulating consent and conformity from the mass public on behalf of the most powerful private interests… consent yes but not in relation to sexual activity between two humans, which is a rights issue predominantly.
:-J
Quite an array of REPEAL jumpers in the front row there; a little higher with the centre of focus, please photographer. Ruth Coppinger, Solidarity/ PBP forgot hers? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFHU0g4Ca08
You have a problem with a photograph of an actual event, the repeal campaign and also TD Coppinger for some reason?.. Just get to the point and spit it out…
Stop with your “look at them over there” and “did you see that”… You’re coming off like an auld-wan, a curtain twitcher that’s hummin and hawin, getting all angry in private behind closed doors.. and maybe heavy breathing at the same time. It seems a little weird and creepy….
:-J
The way I see it, it was the evidence of her friend that ensured the not guilty verdict.
A woman.
And a female judge.
Three female jurors.
Hardly Saudi Arabia.
Well at least those protesting don’t go around saying “I accept the verdict, but……”
…I miss the abortion stuff.
Wait til you see the 28 page full color pull-out section in the Sunday Indo tomorrow.
Over 9500 people registered as homeless in Ireland. Over 3500 children homeless in Ireland. This is fact not speculation. The good people of Ireland do the usual Irish thing and put their head down and pretend it’s not happening because they are deeply ashamed of a society, government that allows that to happen in 2018.
Meanwhile, four individuals are accused of various crimes in another jurisdiction, they are tried by a jury of their peers and found to be not guilty of said charges. Ireland goes bats**t crazy protesting on the streets.
Your post is a hate crime. A typical product of this patriarchy we’re subjected to. Death to all men
Online people are not offline people. Let’s all be more offline. This stuff is painful Reddit speak and San Fran buzz words.
I want to help, I don’t think my retweets are helping.
Jeez Ron – how did you ever uncover these hidden facts on homelessness? You must be very active in advocacy on homelessness to be privy to such undiscussed information.
@Alistair.. Did you get dropped on your head when you were a child or have you always been this dim?
Typo there Ron. To add to your nonsensical argument and whataboutery.
Geez Ron people are homeless and you’re worried about Alastair’s childhood accidents.
lol….
:-J
You know Ron
You attempted to present your indignation over citizens in this jurisdiction paying more attention to the fallout from a Court Case in another one, rather than looking at our own mess here regarding homeless figures.
The fact is you missed the message entirely
The Everyday citizen in both jurisdictions is getting ….ed over. Across all establishment fixtures and operations.
While the haves, the 5% and the special ones are protected as an accepted norm, they are also insured by having the wealth that provides the privilege to ensure its kept that way for themselves.
And see that 5%? In 10 years time it’ll be 3%
Meanwhile this Everyday population is growing, but is actually getting weaker, while the above consolidate and strengthen.
This demo is saying STOP
To all of it
All we have left is our ability to shout
STOP
Until they cannot ignore us,
because they cannot function without us
As the girl on the telly said the other night about those homeless stats you’re so attached to
STOP
Counting
Build the effin’ houses
Your indignation is in fact a man- tantrum
Get over it
Join us
Or get out of our way
TLDR
Cool story Ron
Well said.
Its the repeal mob latching on to a story ,and also to push their agenda that abortion in Ireland is to be the new contraception.
You know David
On Bake Off the other night
The Hollywood diagnosed Joe Lysett’s Blondies with sweaty bottom
I’m happy to advise you’re Broadsheet’s sweaty bottom
Congratulations
I’m sorry david your hysterical posturing is putting me off your central message why can’t you just moderate your tone or you’ll put people off.
Impossible dear David. Contraception means before or to prevent conception. So abortion can’t be contraception because you don’t perform an abortion before the whole fertilization-eggy thingy. Hope that is lay-man enough for thee… Oh and you’re a donkey
I’m already the gin and grapefruit so may I introduce my future husband to the most expensive pubs of Belfast?
Cheers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzX5zt1jzQY
If you had committed a rape though, would you text your mates about it all joking the next day, knowing full well the convo could incriminate you? I find it hard to believe they would be that stupid. Surely a perpetrator would do everything to cover their tracks?
Interesting hypothesis. I do think your overestimating their cognitive ability though. Im not too sure.
Isn’t that part of the issue though? They didn’t, and still don’t, consider themselves rapists. They were probably all telling their version of the truth. And Jackson in particular seems to equate not guilty with innocent. He and his team now seem to be behaving like he is completely exonerated of any wrongdoing. At least Olding is acknowledging it.
They did try to cover up their whatsapp messages. But keep in mind you’re dealing with blackface enthusiasts and superhero doodlers here, not Professor Moriarty.
I’m old fashioned.
I think a jury that has listened to all the evidence and seen the defendants and accuser give it and comes to a unanimous verdict generally gets things right.
But of course this matters little to Generation Snowflake and the Twitchfork Brigade.
I love that old fashioned conviction (!) that OJ never killed anyone. Traditional values.
The irony being that OJ got off precisely because of anger like this
Yeah… no.
Cool story bro
That’s the totality of your routine? Idiotic guff and cliched retorts? OJ got off because the defence played enough of a blinder that they drowned out pertinent evidence with peripheral distraction. Absolutely nothing to do with anyone’s anger. Please keep these sort of deluded musings for your own personal entertainment. They just make you look like an idiot in company.
That’s the totality of my routine when you respond with smug retorts.
While I agree that the defence in the OJ case excelled themselves, claiming that social factors didn’t come into is not only incorrect but shows a lack of knowledge of the case and some of the dismissed jurors.
Meanwhile, I’d have a look at that hair trigger of yours and the rage it seems to channel.
you are so full of poo rotide
I watched the trial live on sky
The police cocked up plain and simple and so did the DA
Their handling of DNA was bizarre like putting a blanket contaminated with OJ s dogs hairs over the bodies, contaminating the evidence.
They took blood samples home then to the evidence locker
Their star detective mainly mark ferman was a racist.
The try on the gloves produced a comical reaction as they did not fit
All OJs team did was tear apart an ill prepared prosecution that was handled by morons
And they produced a theory that the guy Goldman was a coke dealer who supplied the party scene but owed money to the coke suppliers who were Columbian hence the slitting of the throats resembled a punishment called a Columbian neck tie to send out the word pay up
Why do you think Kato Cailin was home boy in OJs
You see celeb fear approaching drug dealers on the street for fear they are featured in some LA gossip magazine like the national enquirer
No rage here bud – just laughing at your idiocy in rolling out such half-baked nonsense. The jurors dismissed in the O.J. trial had nothing to do with ‘anger’ either, and how exactly do dismissed jurors hold any influence on a subsequent acquittal?
Dismissed
48-year-old single black man, who does quality control for Hertz Corp., for whom Simpson was a spokesman.
38-year-old Hispanic letter carrier who said she had suffered verbal and mental abuse from an ex-boyfriend.
63-year-old white female who suffers arthritis and was treated by the same doctor who plans to testify about Simpson’s health.
46-year-old black courier who was the subject of numerous complaints over several weeks. He denied the allegations, including one that he made a bet with a co-worker before the trial that Simpson would be acquitted.
52-year-old married man, half American Indian and half white, who works as an Amtrak manager. Sources say he was suspected of writing a book about the trial. He said was keeping a journal on his computer and acknowledged he might eventually have turned it into a book, but insisted he did nothing wrong.
38-year-old married black woman who, as an employment counselor, referred domestic violence victims to other agencies. She failed to reveal a past personal experience with domestic violence. Her complaints about racial strife among jurors and preferential treatment by some deputies prompted the judge to investigate.
26-year-old single black woman who works as a flight attendant; told the judge, “I can’t take it anymore.” During jury selection, she said she saw Simpson in “Roots” and “Naked Gun” movies and “he seemed like he would have a good sense of humor.”
38-year-old married white woman who works for a telephone company. Another juror accused her of receiving preferential treatment from deputies guarding the jury and treating black panelists unfairly. It also was reported that her husband had pneumonia and she told the judge she didn’t know if she could continue to serve.
54-year-old married black man who works as a postal operations manager; said he was “shocked” when he first heard Simpson was a suspect; alternate juror until Feb. 7. No reason for dismissal given.
28-year-old single Hispanic woman who works as a real estate appraiser with Los Angeles County assessor’s office; about the slow-speed pursuit, she said she “wondered why he ran;” said Simpson was “the only person who had a visible motive;” had no opinion about whether Simpson was guilty or innocent; alternate juror until May 1. No reason for dismissal given.
“Clothes are not Conset”
If, like me, this left you confused, know that Conset are a brand of electrically adjustable desk. So this sign is absolutely correct.
So going out half naked with your boobies pushed up in a padded bra is not to attract the male?
Maybe men should go out in figure hugging Lycra with toilet paper jammed into their crotch and spark up an intelligent conversation?
Time to bring in segregated areas for meeting folks,
You’re right of course again dave.
The only reason a woman ever makes any kind of decision is if it will affect how man views her, and how attractive she is. There could not possibly be any other motive.
You utter plum.
Haha that is literally the very reason why women dress like that. How can you possibly deny that??
Because, as a woman, I can tell you that’s really not why we do it. I’d rather hear another woman tell me they like my dress/shoes/hair than a man.
What reason could I possibly have for wanting to attract a twat like yourself?
Really
I suppose Victoria’s secrets is not to do with turning on men?
God you think all men are just driven by their groin area
Great line for you in the film as good as it gets
Receptionist to Nicholson
How do you understand women as well as you do.?
Nicholson to her
I look at a man and remove reason and accountability.
And what language to use
I really pushed your buttons and come on admit it.
Men: create a society over thousands of years were women are treated as objects for sex and marriage and decoration and procreation.
Also men: Ew, you just dress like that to get men no wonder you get raped.
Right yeah, on a superficial level you might be happy with a compliment from another woman but the reality is women dress provocatively to attract men. That’s not to say that a woman ‘deserves what she gets’ because that is a huge leap for any man to make and is completely wrong. I’m simply coming at it from a matter of fact point of view. I’m not passing judgement.
Yeah but you’re also coming at it from a male point of view. I’m not saying it negates your point but it certainly loses value.
I put on clothes in the morning, it’s for me. I like to feel good in what I wear. I don’t really care if it appeals to a man at all. I prefer to look good for me. It’s really that simple.
I’d even go so far as to say that it’s myth that women dress for the approval of men. Do men dress for anyone other than themselves? I’d be curious to find out.
For example, if you’re wearing clothes that you don’t like, that are ill fitting or don’t suit you, whatever, and then if you go out in them, you feel uncomfortable, self-conscious. Is that not the case for most people? It’s part of how we form our identity, so why wouldn’t we refer to our own tastes first and foremost? Why shouldn’t this apply to men and women?
But david is passing judgement, a nasty creepy misogynistic judgement.
@ Pete Tong.
The problem with your theory is that you are ignoring the one in ten (or whatever) who are not interested in men at all. Do gay women also dress to impress men? Or maybe, just maybe, they just dress in a manner that they want.
Oh and if you think that all gay women are butch dykes then you really need to get out more.
Can any of you explain why yissers wear high heels? They look fierce uncomfortable.
And why don’t yer clothes have pockets?
Well, I don’t know about you Cian, but I like the way high heels make me walk. Taller and with a bit more confidence. That said, they are impractical and rather crippling on the toes.
As for the no pockets thing… I DON’T KNOW. I don’t understand why we don’t have pockets because if you asked us we’d say give us the pockets so we have somewhere to put our keys when we nip out to the shop for milk.
Hope you had a nice Easter btw.
Not all women dress in a manner like that but lets go past the BS and PC
The way you dress dose send out messages and when drink and drugs are involved messages get blurred.
What sort of girl or man follows someone into a bed room at a party. Its asking for trouble.
Would anyone count money in the middle of the street and think they are safe.?
I am no prude what so ever but people must take responsibility for their actions.
There’s a point where eagerness to troll just marks you out as a needy and pathetic figure with problems connecting to people in person.
Sigh.
Utter manure. On a nice day in Ireland you might see any number of men proudly displaying their hairy gut, or toned physique to the world, but I can assure you that most women don’t take it as a signal that its ok to go up and cop a feel. Why should it be any different for women? Why is it THEIR fault that a man hasn’t the self control to respect that what women wear (or don’t wear) is not an invitation to be touched or harassed?
We are talking about going out at night to meet men
Never seen a woman walking down Grafton street dressed like that during the day ,but seen many walking around dressing provocatively at night time
And I have heard they do it when they are on the what’s the word?
Pull.
Once again, I fail to see how this is relevant.
Men don’t dress to impress women no? They don’t go out on the ‘pull’?
What exactly has this to do with my point that men should be capable of respecting women, regardless of what they wear, or time of day?
Poor excuses for someone who thinks that women are ‘asking for it.’
Shut up you creep
What does that have to do with rape, I’m wondering?
Firstly. I don’t agree with what david is saying. However.
I have been in town during a Scotland-Ireland matches and seen many Scots wearing kilts being pawed by women and having their kilts pulled up (by women) and being asked if they are wearing underwear (again, by women).
Is this acceptable behaviour?
No, of course not. It says something about how society regards women’s dress that the sight of a skirt on a man is enough to trigger that response in some women.
It’s not society scottser. It is a cohort of women.
Went a long way to say “she was asking for it” Dave.
Men with attitudes like yours are the problem in society. This she was “half naked” and/or drunk so therefore she was asking for it line of thinking is the justification used by people like you to condone rape. Women shouldn’t have to dress a certain way to avoid being sexually assaulted or raped, the problem here is with the men not the women.
If you feel you lack self-control, perhaps you should be segregated from people, David.
I have self control Nigel.
Do you?
Based on a lot of the crap you post on here I would question whether you actually do have any self-control.
If you can’t handle the clothes women wear without thinking about how they’re asking for it or they they’re doing something dangerous, I’m not sue you do.
If I see a woman scantily clad then I think she’s probably out to score. I’m entitled to think that as it is likely true. The problem arises when a man thinks that this is an invitation to have non consensual sex, which it certainly isn’t.
Asking for what? To be raped ?
That’s not what I said
No one has the right to rape
I am pointing out clothing sends a message
Pete tong states it and I just find women dressed like that cheap
I prefer well tailored cloths something like a beautifully cut flowing dress something classy by Ralf Loren not something that looks like a MTV snoop snoop dog twirking vid advertised by pretty little thing
So it’s crerpy sanctimonious moralistic judgementalism not rape apologetics? Hard to see the distinction. Your preferences are your business. Stop acting as if anyone else has to give a feck.
Dave, you are so erudite in your soundbites…And if she wants to attract his attention, ergo she also wants to end up in a spit roast situation with him and his best mate… QED. *Dusts hands off and goes into the kitchen to make a cup of tea*
I never thought I’d see the day where considering evidence and coming to the same conclusion as 11 jurors in a case would make me a ‘bad man’ but here we are
#IBelieveTheLads
Yep
Thats about the size of it.
People with low morals wanting to be seen as the standard where the bar is set
Took the words right out of my mouth.
The word ‘slut’ applies to both genders sweetheart so here is a serious question… would you stand by the ‘lads’ if it was your own sister or daughter described in such a derogatory way?
this isn’t about the texts, lad banter is lad banter. This is about a fair trial that concluded in a fair way and the internet feminist mafia decided that that verdict was invalid and to have a protest about it.
its like we’re going back in time. A man can no longer get a fair trial in a sexual assault/rape case.
Lad banter is lad banter? Is this more locker room talk?
If this is how grown men talk about women then we need to change.
Sorry but it doesn’t apply to both genders
So men are studs and women are sluts? Juvenile clowns more like although I met ruggers before who were like that. Always trying to get into knickers, of both genders.
A load of Looney leftie birds who’d only ever manage to bag a beta male who would never dare not ask for consent, before, during and after.
Misspelled ‘better’ there.
That’s what you think Bill
But I like the idea of you raising expectations
And then having to explain and put right the disappointment
It’s great that women are mobilizing and standing up for their rights and self-interests..
Some of the men are just angry with the boat getting rocked around without their consent..
Unions that form from any number of people will have the most power over their rights and individual future’s through collective bargaining. If you want to take on the state or any institution that is failing you then find others and join together.
I hope the same happens soon for the homeless, the mentally ill, people with other serious health problems, disabilities and the elderly being neglected by this so-called republic.
Oh.. and then we can deal with the problem of the 60%-ish irish public voting for incompetence and unaccountability in successive governments that do not and will not put the interest’s of citizens before private capital interests which originate mostly from outside the state.
Hopefully by working on the mental illness first part we might cover some of that in advance…
:-J
Couple of things to point out.
Not guilty does actually mean innocent. As does ‘acquittal’ mean innocent.
That’s how the system works.
If this is not understood, every legal decision has to be re-considered.
Looking for blood is not justice. It’s a lynching.
What we read in the papers is only a fraction of the details discussed in court. Only the jury have right to cast justice, not us.
Just want to remind everyone of the Craig Chatles case:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/red-dwarf-star-cleared-of-rape-7946138.html
He was found ‘innocent’.
And another thing.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/11/acquitted-rape-accuser-lying-prosecute
I really wish I didn’t have to spell this out re ‘clothes do not equal consent’, BUT:
Yes, women – or I, as a woman – often make efforts to dress/look sexy. I enjoy this in certain contexts. And yes, the intention is to look attractive: the intention is to attract men. Yes. To signal my youth/looks, whatever, to experience the thrill and the power and pleasure that comes with flirting, with interacting with the opposite sex, with striking up conversation, with perhaps dating, with perhaps sex, yes, yes, yes: all of these things are part of human mating rituals, fun, necessary, yes. No, I do not go out in sackcloth nor do I find it absurd or shocking that a man might look at me, in my short dress and heels, and think, ‘nice’. This doesn’t shock me. It is the point.
HOWEVER. I do not go out dolled up and in high spirits TO BE INDISCRIMINATELY GROPED AND ULTIMATELY RAPED BY ANY MAN WHO PASSES ME.
I claim the right to practice discretion in how I respond. If a man comes over and grabs my tit without permission, I will object to this; if a man comes over and begins to flirt and I don’t fancy him, I will politely decline; if a man comes over and begins to flirt and I like him, I may respond. It’s up to me. Flirting and mixing with the opposite sex and inviting admiration by emphasising my assets is not giving men permission TO BLOODY WELL RAPE ME.
Again: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FLIRTING / DATING / CONSENSUAL FUN TIMES AND RAPE.
The crux of this is: those men who say I ‘deserve’ rape for being dressed provocatively, or drinking, blah blah – what these men object to is precisely the power of discretion and choice I am making. I am an attractive sex object, in this context, but also a sexual SUBJECT: I choose who I sleep with, if at all. It’s my decision. I am in the driving seat with regards to who gets into my pants.
This is what quite simply drives a disturbing number of men totally insane. Because it means they may be rejected and feel bad about themselves.
That’s basically it. It all follows from that.
Entitlement. A fear of rejection and humiliation by what Jordan Peterson, I believe, is now calling ‘the devouring mother’ – the powerful female archetype, whatever.
Pathetic and unformed men who need to prop their ego up by pretending they are inherent superior to women, need to dehumanise women, and punish women for making statements of power.
See also the Catholic Church. See also ‘Love Both’. And before you usual goons jump in, YES WOMEN CAN INTERNALISE AND PROMOTE THIS DAMAGING AGENDA TO. After all, it apparently makes them ‘less likely’ to be raped/punished. Obedience, that is.
Capitals punishment.