The Sponsors and Advertising Discussion Thread

[the-goon]

First topic message reminder :

There will always be good reason to discuss the influence and the effects of corporate money input sport.

[No 7&1/2]

Supposedly another sponsor considering their position now.its like dominos.

[SecretFly]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

[Sin é]

Sorry, I meant the Prosecution acting on her behalf, although it was you who claimed "if the woman had a defence barrister, she would have ripped her tale to shreds". That's what I'm getting at.

Both women were witnesses. The prosecution had the same duty of care to both women. The prosecution was most definately not acting on her behalf. It was acting on behalf of the State.

[SecretFly]

The State wanted Jackson found innocent? Is that the inference there?
The prosecution presents the accuser's case.

[Sin é]

Supposedly another sponsor considering their position now.its like dominos.

Thats how it works. Take for example the Pro14 Guinness Sponsorship - having such a prestigious brand sponsorship attracts lesser brands want to also become involved.

Brands that are appealing to both men and women will keep away. Brands that are appealing to men only won't have a problem with it (such as building companies). You can even see it in the Irish Mirror (whose readership would be young males) defending the lads.

[Sin é]

The State wanted Jackson found innocent?  Is that the inference there?
The prosecution presents the accuser's case.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion.

The victim of an (alleged) r*** is a witness. Both women were the prosecution witnesses, not the defence's witness. In that case, the woman (Dara) thought she saw consensual sex taking place. She also thought that she saw Jackson having penetrative sex (when seemingly he wasn't). There is reasonable doubt in what she actually saw which is all you need to get a not guilty verdict.

[Sin é]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

[SecretFly]

The State wanted Jackson found innocent?  Is that the inference there?
The prosecution presents the accuser's case.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion.

The victim of an (alleged) r*** is a witness. Both women were the prosecution witnesses, not the defence's witness. In that case, the woman (Dara) thought she saw consensual sex taking place. She also thought that she saw Jackson having penetrative sex (when seemingly he wasn't). There is reasonable doubt in what she actually saw which is all you need to get a not guilty verdict.

You're re-running the case again. Yes Jackson is Not Guilty. If he can still be lynched by people of the We Believe Her movement then why have a legal system and verdicts at all. A noose is cheaper isn't it.

Mob law.

[SecretFly]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

So Jackson should have been sacrificed to the system, they should all have been found guilty of r-a-p-e because such conclusions encourage more r-a-p-e victims to come forward?  Dispense with law so that women can avail of the law?

Hysteria and paranoia.  All men potentially will r*** if they get an opportunity.  That's the blunt logic used by people who say they blanket 'believe' women because they are...women.

Salem witch trial era again.

[Sin é]

The State wanted Jackson found innocent?  Is that the inference there?
The prosecution presents the accuser's case.

Don't know how you came to that conclusion.

The victim of an (alleged) r*** is a witness. Both women were the prosecution witnesses, not the defence's witness. In that case, the woman (Dara) thought she saw consensual sex taking place. She also thought that she saw Jackson having penetrative sex (when seemingly he wasn't). There is reasonable doubt in what she actually saw which is all you need to get a not guilty verdict.

You're re-running the case again.  Yes Jackson is Not Guilty.  If he can still be lynched by people of the We Believe Her movement then why have a legal system and verdicts at all.  A noose is cheaper isn't it.

Mob law.

I'm not re-running the case. I'm simply pointing out something which is being ignored by a lot of you here that there was no way to prove which or whether and the jury is also instructed to come back with 'not guilty' if there is any doubt.

How is Jackson being lynched by the ''We believe her movement''. He has a job, his club is standing by him. A sponsor has withdrawn its sponsorship of that club. So what? Its only a sponsor. Sponsors change all the time. Thats up to them who they sponsor.

[Sin é]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

So Jackson should have been sacrificed to the system, they should all have been found guilty of r-a-p-e because such conclusions encourage more r-a-p-e victims to come forward?  Dispense with law so that women can avail of the law?

Hysteria and paranoia.  All men potentially will r*** if they get an opportunity.  That's the blunt logic used by people who say they blanket 'believe' women because they are...women.

Salem witch trial era again.

How is Jackson being sacrificed? Jackson was his own worst enemy for his behaviour after the trial. I actually think if he did behaved like Olding did, he would still be playing rugby with Ulster and Ireland.

As a result of this case, there are reforms being made as to how these trials are to be conducted (including the victim of the r*** having a defence Counsel for the victim.

[SecretFly]

Jesus.  Doubt is always primary in legal findings of innocent or guilty in most western modern legal systems, Sin.  Doubt is a big factor in deciding all cases because that's how serious a deal it is to accuse anyone of anything.  The onus is with the accuser to prove guilt - innocence before guilt - and rightly so.  You can't have an accusation weighing more than innocence, pre-trial

...or maybe you can, in other versions of totalitarian society.  Hmmm, let me think.  Nope, I don't want to be part of one of those.

[Collapse2005]

He behaved like someone who believes they are innoncent. Olding bowed to pressure to express remorse for something he didnt do.

[SecretFly]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

So Jackson should have been sacrificed to the system, they should all have been found guilty of r-a-p-e because such conclusions encourage more r-a-p-e victims to come forward?  Dispense with law so that women can avail of the law?

Hysteria and paranoia.  All men potentially will r*** if they get an opportunity.  That's the blunt logic used by people who say they blanket 'believe' women because they are...women.

Salem witch trial era again.

How is Jackson being sacrificed? Jackson was his own worst enemy for his behaviour after the trial. I actually think if he did behaved like Olding did, he would still be playing rugby with Ulster and Ireland.

As a result of this case, there are reforms being made as to how these trials are to be conducted (including the victim of the r*** having a defence Counsel for the victim.

SHOULD he be sacrificed to the system to allow more women go forward with genuine r*** claims?  It was a question based on the presumptions of your earlier posts. Don't play ignorant.  A question.  You seem to claim that conclusions like the one at this trial discourage women from coming forward.  The inference yet again that it was a wrong legal conclusion... so the question was asked, should innocent men be convicted on the strength of a claim alone?  I know you'd say 'No.' But your arguments keep hinting at 'yes'

[SecretFly]

He behaved like someone who believes they are innoncent. Olding bowed to pressure to express remorse for something he didnt do.

Maybe also Jackson is angrier than Olding.  More cynical than Olding.  Maybe Jackson suspects a crime was committed on him.  And he's entitled to that perception if he held it. There are all kinds of potential crimes around claims of abuse and r***.  Maybe Jackson was angry. Maybe he feels it was he who was wronged.

I wonder - would he be allowed articulate such a belief if he held it in the present climate?

[Collapse2005]

Maybe so, maybe its tactical who knows.

[Sin é]

Jesus.  Doubt is always primary in legal findings of innocent or guilty in most western modern legal systems, Sin.  Doubt is a big factor in deciding all cases because that's how serious a deal it is to accuse anyone of anything.  The onus is with the accuser to prove guilt - innocence before guilt - and rightly so.  You can't have an accusation weighing more than innocence, pre-trial

...or maybe you can, in other versions of totalitarian society.  Hmmm, let me think.  Nope, I don't want to be part of one of those.

And that system does not work for a crime like r*** as its a 'he says, she says'. The Law Reform Commission have been looking at ways to make it work.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/specialreports/r***-why-not-believe-the-woman-859885.html

The feminist Germaine Greer has a rather interesting take on what to do about it.

“Instead of thinking of r*** as a spectacularly violent crime, and some rapes are, think about it as non-consensual… that is bad sex. Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.”

She suggested that a fitting sentence for r*** might be 200 hours’ community service and an ‘r’ tattoo on the r***ist’s hand, arm, or cheek.

[SecretFly]

Are you being serious here, Sin?

I couldn't open the Examiner article (broken for me) but the heading is scary enough.

"Why not believe the woman?"

Does the article go on an suggest weighting the onus on the man to prove he is innocent if accused of r***?  I'll assume it goes down that road....

"Why not believe the woman?"

Let me see.... hmmmm.... well one of the reasons might be because the woman is potentially lying?  Would that be a good enough reason not to just automatically believe a female accuser?

You know, they're still human.  They can lie, they can cheat, they can try to blackmail, they can be corrupt, they can murder, they can be tyrannical, they can be manipulative, they can be vengeful.  They can be every bad thing a man can be so why the hell should we just believe the woman?  Crazy argument if that's the one put forward in that article.

As for the Greer quote.  Yep...interesting - and batty.

"Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love."  

Greer might not know it but there is a thing called casual sex that's doing the rounds these days and probably for the last few tens of thousands of years... and the electronic age has made that fetish/quirk/lifestyle choice even easier for men and women who like to do it.  Not everybody who wants sex, male or female, want love talk, marriage plans or even to know the sex partner's first or last name....

There's a lot of Greer style 'sex crime' about.  A lot of community service in the waiting.  A lot of Nazi branding activity for a woman like Greer to fetishise about

Crazy bloody world when a woman can pop that nonsense into print and intelligent people actually think it has merit for consideration.

Yep.  It can be considered in a world Greer might want to see - back to that lovely totalitarian world that seems to becoming quite popular in mainstream circles.  Everybody 'safe' but nobody free.

[Sin é]

Fly, here is the article. Reason why you can't open it is down to the way r-a-p-e becomes r***. If you come across this problem again, just change the *** back again in your browser. Maybe you might read it before commenting.

r***: Why not believe the woman?
Saturday, August 04, 2018 - 12:00 AM

The Law Reform Commission suggests the emphasis for consent should be shifted onto the man - where he would be expected to actively seek consent rather than the woman be required to give it, writes Mary Morrissy

How do you prove sexual consent? Can it be done in a court of law?

That was at the kernel of the Belfast r*** trial. It figures in most r*** trials since the legal definition of r*** is sex without consent. And in the court process it nearly always comes down to ‘he said, she said’. The Belfast trial raised larger questions too, such as: Can our courts really deal with r***, and is our current system working?

The statistics suggest the answer is no.

The 2002 Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland report — the last comprehensive study on the subject — found that 42% of women had experienced some form of sexual abuse but only 10% of sexual offences were reported.Recent statistics show that only 8% of trials result in a conviction.

The legal machinery employed in r*** cases is particularly cumbersome and pretty hostile to complainants. In our courts, the alleged r***ist is seen as having broken the law of the State so the putative victim is considered a mere witness. So the man is perceived as having wronged society, but not having wrong the woman.

As Roe McDermott, journalist and gender/sexualities scholar, put it: “She is a vehicle for oral and other evidence, really, for whether this crime was committed by the defendant and if that defendant should be convicted for breaking the State’s law.”

Last week (July 27), the Law Reform Commission published a discussion document on r*** justice, concentrating specifically on the issue of consent.

As it stands in Irish law, a man is not guilty of r*** if he honestly — even if mistakenly — believes that the woman has consented to sex. This defence applies even in cases where the man’s belief is shown to be unreasonable.

“It should not be the case that a man can ‘walk out of court’ with his honest but unreasonable belief intact in a case where a woman had not consented to sex,” said Noeline Blackwell of the Dublin r*** Crisis Centre.

Although the defence of honest belief is rarely a deciding factor in r*** trials, its existence is inconsistent with the view that sex without consent is r***, according to Ms Blackwell.

The Law Reform Commission is seeking submissions on whether a more objective “reasonable belief” should replace the “honest belief” clause in relation to consent, for instance, whether a more normal standard of proof should apply in r*** cases. Ms Blackwell has suggested that a commonsense test could be applied to consent. This would shift the emphasis for consent onto the man — where he would be expected to actively seek consent rather than the woman be required to give it. This puts a different spin on the ‘no means no’ model, which places the onus on the unwilling partner to put a stop to an unwanted sexual encounter.

The commission also floats the possibility of introducing a lesser r*** charge for those perpetrators who unreasonably, but honestly, believe the woman has consented. You could perhaps liken this to the division of the crime of killing between manslaughter and murder.

It’s interesting to see this option being put on the table for public debate by a respected legal body. Because, earlier this year veteran feminist, writer, and academic Germaine Greer made a similar suggestion and caused an absolute uproar.

Germaine Greer

Greer argued that the legal system couldn’t cope with r***.

“My feeling is we ditch r*** altogether [as a crime] because it’s hopeless,” she told

The Guardian in January. “I have seen the police working up a r*** case trying desperately hard to build it up so it will stand up in court — and wasting their time. The burden of proof is too high and that’s because the tariff is too onerous. r*** is a daily crime, it’s not spectacular. What we need is a coherent law of sexual assault.”

Following up on this thesis at the Hay Literary Festival in May, she used more colourful language.

“Most r*** is just lazy, just careless, insensitive,” she said. “Every time a man rolls over on his exhausted wife and insists on enjoying his conjugal rights he is raping her. It will never end up in a court of law.

“Instead of thinking of r*** as a spectacularly violent crime, and some rapes are, think about it as non-consensual… that is bad sex. Sex where there is no communication, no tenderness, no mention of love.”

She suggested that a fitting sentence for r*** might be 200 hours’ community service and an ‘r’ tattoo on the r***ist’s hand, arm, or cheek.

Greer’s latest book, entitled On r***, will be published in September. Ah yes, you’ll say, the provocative Greer is promoting a book. And yes she is, but does that undermine her argument?

Isn’t Greer saying —in more intemperate and impatient language — what the Law Reform Commission is now throwing out here for public discussion — should we consider gradations of r***?

Greer’s suggestion to downgrade r*** legally has been widely attacked. It’s seen in a broader context as evidence of Greer throwing in the towel on feminism, rejecting the principles of the #MeToo movement (she has been very dismissive of them, describing the Weinstein accusers as “whingeing career rapees”), as going over to the dark side of misogyny.

But is she not simply proposing another way of looking at r***? Regardless of her perceived motives — self-promotion, publicity — she is presenting a radical take on a really thorny issue. A take that acknowledges how ingrained sexual cruelty is in our Western culture and how poorly our justice system deals with it.

Isn’t this what the #MeToo movement is all about?

The movement has challenged the stereotype of the sexual predator as a stranger with a knife down a dark alley by demonstrating that the predator can be your friend, your brother, your husband, or your boss.

It has exposed sexist and entitled behaviour — from the illicit squeeze of the knee to penetrative sex — as part of a continuum that has persisted as a sickness in our society.

Greer has never been a clubbable feminist. Her views have always divided public opinion. She’s a contrarian, a controversialist, and has come out with some very wacky opinions. For example, that banning female genital mutilation is an attack on cultural identity.

This time, however, not only is she being attacked as being anti-feminist, she is being silenced by those very forums where her views could be debated and challenged. The Brisbane Writers Festival, for example, has “uninvited” her to its September event. Is that because her views on r*** don’t conform with the prevailing feminist consensus?

The #MeToo movement is at a fervid moment of revolutionary action. It has managed to break open a decades-old silence about men’s sexual behaviour. After a century of not being believed, or being blamed for instigating sexual assaults and attacks, women are saying enough is enough. Now that the dam-burst has broken, this is not the time to stifle debate, particularly among feminists. And that means listening to views you don’t agree with, or even ones which offend you.

Greer’s contention about r*** is simple and pragmatic: why not believe the woman and lower the penalty?

It seems to me she is only voicing what we’ve all been wondering since the Belfast r*** trial.

We know who loses, but who exactly wins in a r*** case?

[SecretFly]

Ps.... and also....

"He said, she said"

Council for the accuser to accused: "You were alone together - no witnesses.  Did you mention the word love whilst engaging in sexual activity with my client?"
Accused:  "Yes, I said that I thought she was beautiful and that if we had a few more sessions I might actually fall in love with her."
Council for the accuser to his client:  "Did he mention this to you?"
Accuser:  "No.  He never said a word."

He said, she said....
You still have to work out which is telling the truth.  That is to say when the lack of "love" words constitutes probable r***

Madness.

[SecretFly]

Greer’s contention about r*** is simple and pragmatic: why not believe the woman and lower the penalty?

It seems to me she is only voicing what we’ve all been wondering since the Belfast r*** trial.

We know who loses, but who exactly wins in a r*** case?

I really don't believe you're advocating this as a solution to the crime of r***.  Do you realise how dangerous a concept that is?  Can you project how such a law might be used and abused?  You understand that Nations have gone to war to kill off societies developing models with such dogmatic/philosophical goals.

"Believe the woman".  And people, like you do here, say it without blinking.  It doesn't disturb you.  You have no care of how such a concept could be used to shift and twist entire political systems.  Women could be used to kill business careers, political careers, military careers.  Blackmail and corruption of every exotic kind simply because it would be certain that if a man was accused of r***, he would be automatically found guilty...with a lesser sentence of lifelong Brand on his cheek....

Crazy!  And you say such stuff or present such stuff for consideration without a blink.  There is some serious subliminal programming going on in our society these days.  Some serious stuff.  Kinda stuff world wars are fought over.  No Sin, I'd never accept guilt as a man if I was innocent, even if it made certain women happier with the world they live in.

Didn't read the article bit of your post yet.  I will when I get time but I doubt it will be changing my remarks.

[Sin é]

Greer’s contention about r*** is simple and pragmatic: why not believe the woman and lower the penalty?

It seems to me she is only voicing what we’ve all been wondering since the Belfast r*** trial.

We know who loses, but who exactly wins in a r*** case?

I really don't believe you're advocating this as a solution to the crime of r***.  Do you realise how dangerous a concept that is?  Can you project how such a law might be used and abused?  You understand that Nations have gone to war to kill off societies developing models with such dogmatic/philosophical goals.

"Believe the woman".  And people, like you do here, say it without blinking.  It doesn't disturb you.  You have no care of how such a concept could be used to shift and twist entire political systems.  Women could be used to kill business careers, political careers, military careers.  Blackmail and corruption of every exotic kind simply because it would be certain that if a man was accused of r***, he would be automatically found guilty...with a lesser sentence of lifelong Brand on his cheek....

Crazy!  And you say such stuff or present such stuff for consideration without a blink.  There is some serious subliminal programming going on in our society these days.  Some serious stuff.  Kinda stuff world wars are fought over.  No Sin, I'd never accept guilt as a man if I was innocent, even if it made certain women happier with the world they live in.

Didn't read the article bit of your post yet.  I will when I get time but I doubt it will be changing my remarks.

No, Fly I'm not advocating it as a solution for r***. The 'Feministas' frequently get the blame for destroying men's careers, I'm quoting the Queen of Feministas making a different case on how to fix this dilemma. The present system isn't working.

Instead of diverting your outrage at Greer, what do you think of what the Law Reform Commission has to say?

[SecretFly]

Ok, so the article's main contention is that to replace the "no means no" philosophy, the man should actively Seek consent.

Again, how the hell do you work out who to believe in that scenario if the incident takes place in private?  Who do you believe?  The woman who says the man didn't ask for consent?  Or do you believe the man who is adamant that he did ask for consent?

Is the appeal for consent just verbal or do you need to fill in a form and sign it?  Do you need to put in an official request into the department of sexual activity a week before you want to engage in sexual activity and ask the woman you wish to have sex with to sign the request form with you?  Do you both have to press a button on a consent app on your phone?

Plus...in these days of equality.  Should the woman also now be forced (in whatever way they think they can enforce it) to ask for consent if she happens to be more frisky than he is - which happens!  Are husbands and wives required to officially ask for consent when they get intimate on the couch whilst watching a movie?  Should gay men and women be forced to seek consent for their sexual activity?

Still sounds crazy Sin and dangerous in a Big Brother way.

[SecretFly]

Greer’s contention about r*** is simple and pragmatic: why not believe the woman and lower the penalty?

It seems to me she is only voicing what we’ve all been wondering since the Belfast r*** trial.

We know who loses, but who exactly wins in a r*** case?

I really don't believe you're advocating this as a solution to the crime of r***.  Do you realise how dangerous a concept that is?  Can you project how such a law might be used and abused?  You understand that Nations have gone to war to kill off societies developing models with such dogmatic/philosophical goals.

"Believe the woman".  And people, like you do here, say it without blinking.  It doesn't disturb you.  You have no care of how such a concept could be used to shift and twist entire political systems.  Women could be used to kill business careers, political careers, military careers.  Blackmail and corruption of every exotic kind simply because it would be certain that if a man was accused of r***, he would be automatically found guilty...with a lesser sentence of lifelong Brand on his cheek....

Crazy!  And you say such stuff or present such stuff for consideration without a blink.  There is some serious subliminal programming going on in our society these days.  Some serious stuff.  Kinda stuff world wars are fought over.  No Sin, I'd never accept guilt as a man if I was innocent, even if it made certain women happier with the world they live in.

Didn't read the article bit of your post yet.  I will when I get time but I doubt it will be changing my remarks.

No, Fly I'm not advocating it as a solution for r***. The 'Feministas' frequently get the blame for destroying men's careers, I'm quoting the Queen of Feministas making a different case on how to fix this dilemma. The present system isn't working.

Instead of diverting your outrage at Greer, what do you think of what the Law Reform Commission has to say?

She's a strident feminist that you quote, Sin.  You can think her opinion has a degree of debating logic to it, I get to think it crazy.  Now, that's not to say such a situation couldn't become reality (brands and all).  But in such a society, both you and I would be slaves... or rebels, because it would be a totalitarian regime every bit as evil as the Nazis.  I'd either be dead or in an army fighting it.

[Collapse2005]

I respect your right to take whaever stance you wish Sin but believing anyone unconditionally is a terrible idea in any judicial system. Its also completely contrary to any goal of equality to believe one party over another by default on the basis of their gender.

[Sin é]

Ok, so the article's main contention is that to replace the "no means no" philosophy, the man should actively Seek consent.

Again, how the hell do you work out who to believe in that scenario if the incident takes place in private?  Who do you believe?  The woman who says the man didn't ask for consent?  Or do you believe the man who is adamant that he did ask for consent?

Is the appeal for consent just verbal or do you need to fill in a form and sign it?  Do you need to put in an official request into the department of sexual activity a week before you want to engage in sexual activity and ask the woman you wish to have sex with to sign the request form with you?  Do you both have to press a button on a consent app on your phone?

Plus...in these days of equality.  Should the woman also now be forced (in whatever way they think they can enforce it) to ask for consent if she happens to be more frisky than he is - which happens!  Are husbands and wives required to officially ask for consent when they get intimate on the couch whilst watching a movie?  Should gay men and women be forced to seek consent for their sexual activity?

Still sounds crazy Sin and dangerous in a Big Brother way.

Maybe you should go on one of Richard Sadlier's sex education courses Fly.

[SecretFly]

Would Richard teach me the right way to ask for consent so that it gets legally registered with the Ministry for Sexual Activity?

Oh God, I hope it's not when I'm on a tropical beach bathed by a lovely fiery red sunset, and the woman of my dreams kissing my neck and trying to pull my shirt off!  And my phone is three miles back in the hotel!!!!

How Sin?  Tell me what to do????  What does Richard say I should do??

Mark a big May Day! in the sand followed by:  "I'm about to make love and officially ask for consent."
Maybe some friendly Russian spy satellite would pick it up and forward if to the Ministry for me.

Oops...Russians = Bad and Evil.  Oh well, branding iron for me when I get home.

[Collapse2005]

A footballer giving a course on sex ed sounds about as likely a match as a binman giving a course on makeup artistry.

[clivemcl]

Since abuse and even r*** are said to be quite possible or even common within committed relationships, I have to assume that Sin would advise each of us to both express verbally our love to our spouses and verbally agree with them before engaging in any phyisical sexual activity, yes?

So much for hot and steamy... but then again, we need to make sure I guess. If they don't actually agree to a specific request, and don't speak during the activity, for all we males know, our spouses could be silently reluctant and we are rapists...

[clivemcl]

Furthermore... we should probably make a recording of teh verbal agreement just in case somebody decides to lie... because you know.... you ought to believe the female ... just because... I mean its serious, so it must be true.

So if you have no recording of the agreement, or a signed contract sent to your solicitor prior to every sexual activity.... you are probably a liar and you probably are a r***ist...

[SecretFly]

Btw, I fixed on the idea that 'the present system isn't working' and decided to go do a search for specific numbers of rapists in prison in Ireland. Sure enough, Google threw up just about every conceivable topic on non-reporting etc etc.  They even threw up something were one guy or woman was castigating the 'not all men' criers.  How nice, we should feel guilt now even when saying not all men are rapists.

Anyway, I did manage to eventually find some little piece on actual statistics.... the thing I was looking for in the first place without the propaganda speeches.

And Sin, you won't believe if but it's in the good old Irish Examiner.

Ireland in the study (2017) had more people in prison on life sentences than the European average.  The North I think was tops.
But more specifically on to sexual crimes:

Ireland were stated as having 6.7% of inmates as convicted rapists (the European average was 4.6%)
For other sexual offences Ireland were on 6% (the European average was 3.9%)

I looked at the overall prison population.  The latest figure seems to be 4,039 (April 2019).  Let's say that roughly 6.7% remains about the same for the r***ist population.
So very roughly, is that about 260 convicted rapists and roughly the same number of people convicted of other sexual offences?  That's off the top of my head so forgive the roughness. 
Obviously, people are going to court.  I would assume most of them are men.  I take it that women have taken cases against them, and testified against them, and evidence was heard, and juries came to the conclusion that the defendants committed the crime of r***.

But we don't hear about those kinds of conviction rates or of the women who successfully got justice according to their claims.  No, those numbers don't interest the social justice warriors.  The system doesn't work, women don't come forward, men get off.  That's the mantra that gets the blood up and gains followers.

[SecretFly]

So tell some of the success stories in the media about women who come forward and make their case and get their abusers convicted.  Wouldn't that be a better, more positive publicity campaign for feminists who say women must have encouragement to come forward?  
There is encouragement there - women who have actually done it and were proven to be telling the truth.

[Collapse2005]

Oh logic and feminism are like oil and water.

[LondonTiger]

When I was at university, during Freshers week, there was a lot of tipsy sex. One girl was being teased mercilessly by her new friends for "copping off" with a "massive geek". After a few days she lodged a complaint. The accused was suspended from college, face spread across the tabloids and spent 2 years in purgatory before being cleared. Since then I no longer believe a woman should be automatically believed. That is not mysoginistic. I do however believe that all alleged victims should be treated with respect by the police. The CPS on this side of the water will not prosecute any more if there is any hint that the alleged victim is promiscuous. That to me is appalling.

[SecretFly]

"Believe the woman" and Brand the man. Yep, there are some serious misandrists out there these days. Well spotted, Cyril

[Collapse2005]

When I was at university, during Freshers week, there was a lot of tipsy sex. One girl was being teased mercilessly by her new friends for "copping off" with a "massive geek". After a few days she lodged a complaint. The accused was suspended from college, face spread across the tabloids and spent 2 years in purgatory before being cleared. Since then I no longer believe a woman should be automatically believed. That is not mysoginistic. I do however believe that all alleged victims should be treated with respect by the police. The CPS on this side of the water will not prosecute any more if there is any hint that the alleged victim is promiscuous. That to me is appalling.

Exactly, women are put under fairly considerable and unfair pressure to be conservative when it comes to sex so it isnt unexpected that rather than take the reputation coming their way some women look for another way out.

There are plenty of theories as to why women get this treatment and men dont. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that only women can get pregnant and its not good for society to have lots of single mothers or perhaps because women are more prone to STI so its a way of protecting the female population.

Others have theorised that by contrast to men the threat of violence cannot be used to keep rogue women in check and therefore society has evolved to keep rogue women in check by verbal abuse instead.

Either way its obviously not sensible to believe anyone by default over another party simply based on gender.

[No 7&1/2]

There s a real question of if theres anyone London Irish could pick up at this point who is as good at fly half should they choose to move on from the disruption.

[SirBurger]

Doubtful if we could and we have made it clear that we won't. We need to stand behind our man at this stage.

[No 7&1/2]

Perhaps. If hes playing badly and it seems disruptive I'm sure even the people supporting him now may lose patience. I suppose the beds been made.

[RDW]

So how is this working commercially for LI? The last thing they need is major sponsors pulling out just as they've been promoted, and can't imagine any other major company would come on board at this stage given the controversy it would no doubt cause (rightly or wrongly).

[SecretFly]

So how is this working commercially for LI? The last thing they need is major sponsors pulling out just as they've been promoted, and can't imagine any other major company would come on board at this stage given the controversy it would no doubt cause (rightly or wrongly).

It's a gamble.  A card game.  If they stick with him and hold their nerve...I guess then the next big tester would be Jackson walking out onto the field to play.  Boos or cheers?  Audience reaction would be the final decider.  Is public perception (genuine public perception not the one controlled by media/political interests) that this man is a man who has cheated justice or that he is an innocent man being tarnished and persecuted?

[SirBurger]

Perhaps. If hes playing badly and it seems disruptive I'm sure even the people supporting him now may lose patience. I suppose the beds been made.

If he is playing badly then we have other fly-halves who will be given a chance and hopefully take it. As long as it doesn't disrupt the playing squad (and early signs are that it won't) then I don't see the problem from an on-pitch perspective.

[SirBurger]

So how is this working commercially for LI? The last thing they need is major sponsors pulling out just as they've been promoted, and can't imagine any other major company would come on board at this stage given the controversy it would no doubt cause (rightly or wrongly).

Major sponsors account for a tiny percentage of the club's revenues. The club is ultimately funded by Mick Crossan, the owner, and his company Poweday, who are the main sponsors, as well as the new CVA money.

[No 7&1/2]

No clearly a talented player, just with baggage. Seen that Brophy-Clews looks to be back fit and starring preseason. Hes always been hailed as a player with great potential but not someone I've seen masses of. You optimistic he'll push this season?

[RDW]

Certanily going to be a lot of pressure on him to perform!

[SirBurger]

No clearly a talented player, just with baggage. Seen that Brophy-Clews looks to be back fit and starring preseason. Hes always been hailed as a player with great potential but not someone I've seen masses of. You optimistic he'll push this season?

The trouble I have with Theo is that he is a supremely talented ball-player, but just doesn't have the kicking game required for a 10. He is actually a fairly big lad though (think Farrell's size) and doesn't mind getting stuck in defensively, so I think he should focus on 12, however, he continues to describe himself as a 10 and that appears to be where he sees himself developing. If he can kick his goals and start making more than 5 metres on his kicks to touch then he is obviously a fantastic talent. He missed all of last season with injuries and there were rumours of a bit of a bad attitude under the new regime, but he sounds really fired up from the soundbites coming out already this summer. To be honest, given his poor injury record and failure to control games from 10, in my eyes he is in the last chance saloon, but I am quietly optimistic he may finally come good this year.

[SirBurger]

Certanily going to be a lot of pressure on him to perform!

Absolutely.

[Sin é]

Would Richard teach me the right way to ask for consent so that it gets legally registered with the Ministry for Sexual Activity?

Oh God, I hope it's not when I'm on a tropical beach bathed by a lovely fiery red sunset, and the woman of my dreams kissing my neck and trying to pull my shirt off!  And my phone is three miles back in the hotel!!!!

How Sin?  Tell me what to do????  What does Richard say I should do??

Mark a big May Day! in the sand followed by:  "I'm about to make love and officially ask for consent."
Maybe some friendly Russian spy satellite would pick it up and forward if to the Ministry for me.

Oops...Russians = Bad and Evil.  Oh well, branding iron for me when I get home.

I think so, he is running courses for 14/15 year old transition year students in schools.

[Collapse2005]

What a hero.

[Sin é]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

So Jackson should have been sacrificed to the system, they should all have been found guilty of r-a-p-e because such conclusions encourage more r-a-p-e victims to come forward?  Dispense with law so that women can avail of the law?

Hysteria and paranoia.  All men potentially will r*** if they get an opportunity.  That's the blunt logic used by people who say they blanket 'believe' women because they are...women.

Salem witch trial era again.

How is Jackson being sacrificed? Jackson was his own worst enemy for his behaviour after the trial. I actually think if he did behaved like Olding did, he would still be playing rugby with Ulster and Ireland.

As a result of this case, there are reforms being made as to how these trials are to be conducted (including the victim of the r*** having a defence Counsel for the victim.

SHOULD he be sacrificed to the system to allow more women go forward with genuine r*** claims?  It was a question based on the presumptions of your earlier posts. Don't play ignorant.  A question.  You seem to claim that conclusions like the one at this trial discourage women from coming forward.  The inference yet again that it was a wrong legal conclusion... so the question was asked, should innocent men be convicted on the strength of a claim alone?  I know you'd say 'No.' But your arguments keep hinting at 'yes'

The aggressive questioning of the victim in that case suggests that there is a problem with the court system when it comes to dealing with r***. In a r*** case in Cork, a woman's underwear were displayed in the court to support the claim that she was 'up for it'. There is a problem with the system and that needs to be changed.

[Sponsored content]