Jack de Belin court case

[BOZO]

Snake, the reality is that what we would call adultery, happens all the time and happens with both the men and women. I have even been propositioned by a couple of married woman I knew, one was a close friend, when I was young and at least reasonably presentable. I refuse to be involved in such behaviour because its against my personal values, but that's my values not theirs. Welcome to the real World.

I've known many who have stepped outside of the boundaries of marriage, both male and female. And most were fundamentally good people in all other respects. If you aren't aware of how common that is, you haven't been around too long, or you've been a in a stable marriage and just don't see it. Good luck to you. Though I would never involve myself with a married woman, that's a personal decision partly because my ex wife left me after she had an affair with another man. I do know how it feels and it hurts. But that happens all the time and my ex wife was an otherwise good person, and even 40 years later we are still on friendly terms, and we didn't have children to maintain that contact. I just accept it happens

Just because adultery is common in the real world does not mean it is not make it less Unethical Immoral , dishonourable and deceitful than what it really is

One of the greatest characteristic that makes a person great in our real world is Integrity having the quality of having strong morals and principles and doing the right thing by others

The moral of this Immoral story is
When we act in an improper way we also face the consequences that come with it

 

[Snake]

Poor Mrs de Belin. Watching this trial to decide if her husband is a rapist with his mate, or is he just cheats on her with his mate while she is at home, pregnant.
One could imagine that she knows which it is too.

Humiliating for her but if she had her wits about her she would have picked up that he is more obsessed with his appearance than she is with hers. When he was lusting over cheer leaders on national television during the channel 9 interview it should have been a red flag that she was with a guy of very little self control . It's also humiliating watching their perfect partners on the footy show and she calls him 'Jacky boy' haha. He sure is a boy.

 

[Snake]

Just because adultery is common in the real world does not mean it is not make it less Unethical Immoral , dishonourable and deceitful than what it really is

One of the greatest characteristic that makes a person great in our real world is Integrity having the quality of having strong morals and principles and doing the right thing by others

The moral of this Immoral story is
When we act in an improper way we also face the consequences that come with it

This is your best post ever.

 

[BOZO]

This is your best post ever.

Thank you feathered friend
I hope you have an awesome day

 

[Bearfax]

Just because adultery is common in the real world does not mean it is not make it less Unethical Immoral , dishonourable and deceitful than what it really is

One of the greatest characteristic that makes a person great in our real world is Integrity having the quality of having strong morals and principles and doing the right thing by others

The moral of this Immoral story is
When we act in an improper way we also face the consequences that come with it

Morality is a social construct. It is not written in stone and different cultures can have different moral stances. What may seem moral in one community may be immoral in another. Take three instances, homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion. Some will say each is immoral, others will say its moral. Depends on the community and that can change generation by generation. Just having a different belief has been identified as immoral and blasphemy by most religions at different stages.

To assume your values are correct is just your point of view, and probably the stance of the community you live in. Another prime example is murder. I murder someone on grounds that I find totally justified, such as stealing my partner, or someone sexually assaulting my child. But I'll be convicted of murder because its deemed immoral. Yet the state can even force me to go to war and kill people I don't even know and if I do it often enough I could be deemed a hero. Where does the difference lie. It lies in the values of the society.

Values and morals develop for the needs of the community. You don't kill me, I wont kill you. You don't steal from me, I wont steal from you. That's the fundamental and depending upon the needs of the society, including defence, certain moralities develop. But they are all social constructs to achieve stability in a community, not something set in stone. You cant impose your moral stance on someone else. You can only live by the values you hold in your own life and hope others see it is worthy of accepting. The thing is others may view your values as immoral. Just perspective.

 

[Snake]

Morality is a social construct. It is not written in stone and different cultures can have different moral stances. What may seem moral in one community may be immoral in another. Take three instances, homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion. Some will say each is immoral, others will say its moral. Depends on the community and that can change generation by generation. Just having a different belief has been identified as immoral and blasphemy by most religions at different stages.

To assume your values are correct is just your point of view, and probably the stance of the community you live in. Another prime example is murder. I murder someone on grounds that I find totally justified, such as stealing my partner, or someone sexually assaulting my child. But I'll be convicted of murder because its deemed immoral. Yet the state can even force me to go to war and kill people I don't even know and if I do it often enough I could be deemed a hero. Where does the difference lie. It lies in the values of the society.

Values and morals develop for the needs of the community. You don't kill me, I wont kill you. You don't steal from me, I wont steal from you. That's the fundamental and depending upon the needs of the society, including defence, certain moralities develop. But they are all social constructs to achieve stability in a community, not something set in stone. You cant impose your moral stance on someone else. You can only live by the values you hold in your own life and hope others see it is worthy of accepting. The thing is others may view your values as immoral. Just perspective.

You can impose your moral stance on someone else. Individuals and communities do it all the time. It is why people break up with their cheating partners and why there are people in jail. It doesn't mean everyone will agree but it can certainly be imposed. Just because something is nothing more than a 'social construct' does not deem it invalid. There are indigenous communities where women are raped and the reason why these communities see things differently is because they are uneducated, not because they have a different 'moral compass'. The trauma these young girls experience as they are raped and bring children into the world at an age where they cannot provide emotional or economic support is downright sad, not simply a difference in morality. Do you leave the problem alone and label it nothing more than a 'difference in morality' or do you step in and attempt to improve the quality of life within these communities? By your logic, you'd deem that imposing a moral stance?!

You keep trying to play devils advocate on issues and come up with all these alternative views as if you are some sort of spiritual guru buddha...it actually comes across as if you've smoked too much ganja haha.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Look I’ll admit I’m old fashioned and this whole disrespecting females deal just isn’t the way I was brought up !!

BUT

Surely there has to be a level of self preservation here , regardless of the fact the woman was 19.

Dancing with men and making suggestive moves AND then going back to an apartment in the early hours of the morning with them is seriously putting yourself at great risk of untoward consequences.

Look I’m not in anyway supportive of scumbag footballers who think they are gods gift to women and can do anything they like either but this has been very bad judgement by the young lady in my opinion.

I think the analogy above ( it was consensual but after they just discarded her like a piece of garbage at the end she’s decided to get her revenge )is the likely true story.

That said forcing acts on women who don’t want it is in my opinion absolutely disgusting.

Believe it or not this case is not too dissimilar to the one I was on a jury for just over 20 years ago and it was impossible to convict based on the reasonable doubt issue.

 

[Bearfax]

You can impose your moral stance on someone else. Individuals and communities do it all the time. It is why people break up with their cheating partners and why there are people in jail. It doesn't mean everyone will agree but it can certainly be imposed. Just because something is nothing more than a 'social construct' does not deem it invalid. There are indigenous communities where women are raped and the reason why these communities see things differently is because they are uneducated, not because they have a different 'moral compass'. The trauma these young girls experience as they are raped and bring children into the world at an age where they cannot provide emotional or economic support is downright sad, not simply a difference in morality. Do you leave the problem alone and label it nothing more than a 'difference in morality' or do you step in and attempt to improve the quality of life within these communities? By your logic, you'd deem that imposing a moral stance?!

You keep trying to play devils advocate on issues and come up with all these alternative views as if you are some sort of spiritual guru buddha...it actually comes across as if you've smoked too much ganja haha.

Snake you are beginning to sound like Trump and that worries me. I believe we all have different paths that lead us to positions that are always different. If you have to impose your beliefs on another, you will always lose. Morality is evolutionary, Snake. It is never fixed. If you believe it is, you haven't been reading much history

 

[Brisbane Tragic]

What is absolutely plausible is the woman was keen on these two guys and flirted and what not and was well and truly up for a shag, etc. But most women don't like being treated like a toy and cast aside afterwards. My guess is she consented but when they started getting rough and then showed no interest in after the act was finished, she took on the persona of the scorned lover.

I have no proof but reading between the lines of what has come out so far with her behaviour on the dance floor and the laughing and smiling afterwards when lining up for the next nightclub and the $50 to 'keep quiet' which I assume refers to de Belin's Mrs not finding out, and it starts to look like she had regrets when these guys showed their true colours...she was just a root and nothing more and a lot of women can't live with that revelation for long.

Pair that with the rough treatment of the choking and the attempted bum penetration and who knows...maybe they got a bit heavy handed after what was originally consensual

Yep my assessment as well

 

[Snake]

Snake you are beginning to sound like Trump and that worries me. I believe we all have different paths that lead us to positions that are always different. If you have to impose your beliefs on another, you will always lose. Morality is evolutionary, Snake. It is never fixed. If you believe it is, you haven't been reading much history

Putting someone is jail for murder is not 'imposing beliefs"...it's a necessary consequence to prevent others from commiting such acts, knowing that a consequence is imminent.

I never argued that it is fixed so not sure what you're getting at there? I'm simply stating that imposing morals on others is what happens in society everyday and you don't seem to see that? Every person in jail today in this country had a collective morality imposed on them?! Looks like society is winning that battle. Be it fixed or not does not come into the equation?

You are so stubborn and pig headed...I've never seen u change the tact of an argument you've put forward once in all the years I've been on this forum...yet you play the "open minded and enlightened being" card all the time?!

 

[manlyfan76]

Putting someone is jail for murder is not 'imposing beliefs"...it's a necessary consequence to prevent others from commiting such acts, knowing that a consequence is imminent.

But why is there still murder?
Like Bear said the government sends people to war to kill but then says an individual should not.
Maybe this is the problem.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

**** me this is getting “ deep”.

 

[Snake]

But why is there still murder?
Like Bear said the government sends people to war to kill but then says an individual should not.
Maybe this is the problem.

I'm just making the point that morality can be imposed on others. It happens all the time...without it, there would be complete anarchy. A somewhat more civilised society is the byproduct of a collective agreement of what is right and wrong. There will always be the extreme ends of the bell curve but it's people speaking out against other people's poor behaviour that sets a standard for what society will and won't accept.

sticking your head in the sand to avoid 'judgement' because everyone has their own moral compass is moronic...it's so easy to cast no stone when it doesn't impact on you but I wonder if bearfax would be so neutral if something happened to someone he cared about? Would he just chalk down to 'differences in morality' and move on? I doubt it.

If I go by his logic when someone attacks my Mother on the street and beats her to death, I should take comfort in the fact that the perpetrator had a different moral standing and we are not to judge because it's just a social construct? Hahaha ****in get real!

 

[Ranga]

Dancing with men and making suggestive moves AND then going back to an apartment in the early hours of the morning with them is seriously putting yourself at great risk of untoward consequences.

Hmmm, I probably wouldn't go down the path of victim blaming especially for these types of cases. Not sure if that is what you intended....

I guess I have a different perspective on what has been reported. The alleged victim says that she got in the tuktuk (or whatever) to go to another nightclub and that they ended up at the apartment after JDB paid 50 clams to driver to take them to his cousin's apartment as he needed to "charge his phone". So sure, the evidence reported would support the contentions of suggestive moves on the dance floor but in my mind that only tells a small part of the story and I wouldn't necessarily be able to draw the conclusion from suggestive dance moves that she voluntarily went to that apartment and consented to what took place in that apartment. Particularly when she says she got in the tuktuk to go to another club.

I imagine there is plenty more evidence to come out here, which the jury will of course have the full benefit of in making their decision. I will be interested to see if a psychologist gives expert evidence that might explain the alleged victim's behaviour after the incident. I will also be interested to see if one or both of de Belin or Sinclair take the stand. Their defence is centred on a reasonable belief of consent and so I would have thought the best chance of succeeding in this defence would be for the jury to hear it from their perspective. Did the accused take the stand in the case you were part of the jury?

 

[Snake]

But why is there still murder?
Like Bear said the government sends people to war to kill but then says an individual should not.
Maybe this is the problem.

Don't just label it optimistic..if u have something to say, say it?!

 

[Snake]

But why is there still murder?
Like Bear said the government sends people to war to kill but then says an individual should not.
Maybe this is the problem.

Let's open the gates at Golbourn super max...these poor criminals are just the victim of a social construct. The government went to war so two wrongs make a right and Ivan Milat should never have had society impose a moral standard on him because it is nothing more than a silly construct. If only we didn't lock him up for so long, he could have done more damage because that was his will and understanding of moral values...the poor diddums

 

[Bearfax]

Putting someone is jail for murder is not 'imposing beliefs"...it's a necessary consequence to prevent others from commiting such acts, knowing that a consequence is imminent.

I never argued that it is fixed so not sure what you're getting at there? I'm simply stating that imposing morals on others is what happens in society everyday and you don't seem to see that? Every person in jail today in this country had a collective morality imposed on them?! Looks like society is winning that battle. Be it fixed or not does not come into the equation?

You are so stubborn and pig headed...I've never seen u change the tact of an argument you've put forward once in all the years I've been on this forum...yet you play the "open minded and enlightened being" card all the time?!

Snake you are confusing laws with morals mate and even laws change. I am not pig headed as you would describe it. If anything I am extremely open minded. That's why I wont accept definitive statements. I'm always prepared to admit I don't have the complete picture on anything. I operate on something like percentages in likelihood that what I have come to accept provisionally is most likely. But I always know there is a chance I could be wrong.

Mate you have to understand, that like a mechanic, a plumber, an accountant, one of my specialities professionally is human behaviour. I was trained heavily in that area. If you knew what a parole officer and a union boss does dealing with literally many thousands of people on a very personal level, you come to realise the great differences that exist out there in the community and how different their moral sense is. And its not about criminality, because most people identified as criminal are no different in most aspects of their life than you or me. Only about ten percent are what you would call entrenched criminals. The other 90% are normal people with dysfunctional behaviour usually in one area of their life. I could see there was little difference when I was dealing with public servants addressing union issues. They behaved the same way. I also ran a emergency half way house for street teens, fourteen at a time and over a hundred went through while I was there with my ex wife. That's only part of my story.

The thing is I have a reasonably good sense of human nature and if I seem like an advocate, you may be right, because I know just how many variables and other features there are. To judge someone on a single act, is missing totally the person as a whole. Unless you know the person well, you cant possibly know their motivation and values. I've known murderers who were very kind and gentle souls. Something triggers them and suddenly they are defined for life as ' a murderer'. People are not a single act, they are far far more complex. That's what I'm trying to get across .In my role we never judged. That was the role of the court. And even after conviction, it was our role to ensure they met the conditions of their order, but always show respect, no matter how nasty the offence. That is what does the most good.

 

[Snake]

Snake you are confusing laws with morals mate and even laws change. I am not pig headed as you would describe it. If anything I am extremely open minded. That's why I wont accept definitive statements. I'm always prepared to admit I don't have the complete picture on anything. I operate on something like percentages in likelihood that what I have come to accept provisionally is most likely. But I always know there is a chance I could be wrong.

Mate you have to understand, that like a mechanic, a plumber, an accountant, one of my specialities professionally is human behaviour. I was trained heavily in that area. If you knew what a parole officer and a union boss does dealing with literally many thousands of people on a very personal level, you come to realise the great differences that exist out there in the community and how different their moral sense is. And its not about criminality, because most people identified as criminal are no different in most aspects of their life than you or me. Only about ten percent are what you would call entrenched criminals. The other 90% are normal people with dysfunctional behaviour usually in one area of their life. I could see there was little difference when I was dealing with public servants addressing union issues. They behaved the same way. I also ran a emergency half way house for street teens, fourteen at a time and over a hundred went through while I was there with my ex wife. That's only part of my story.

The thing is I have a reasonably good sense of human nature and if I seem like an advocate, you may be right, because I know just how many variables and other features there are. To judge someone on a single act, is missing totally the person as a whole. Unless you know the person well, you cant possibly know their motivation and values. I've known murderers who were very kind and gentle souls. Something triggers them and suddenly they are defined for life as ' a murderer'. People are not a single act, they are far far more complex. That's what I'm trying to get across .In my role we never judged. That was the role of the court. And even after conviction, it was our role to ensure they met the conditions of their order, but always show respect, no matter how nasty the offence. That is what does the most good.

Ok I understand and apologise for calling you pigheaded. Im no saint but I get riled up when it comes to men treating women poorly. My emotions take over

 

[Bearfax]

Let's open the gates at Golbourn super max...these poor criminals are just the victim of a social construct. The government went to war so two wrongs make a right and Ivan Milat should never have had society impose a moral standard on him because it is nothing more than a silly construct. If only we didn't lock him up for so long, he could have done more damage because that was his will and understanding of moral values...the poor diddums

Snake, really. By the way have you ever been to Goulburn supermax if you are going to throw words like that around. I've visited almost every gaol in NSW as well as Boggo Road in Queensland and Goulburn. So I think I know a little about those places. Again you distort the meaning behind the comment. It was never saying murder shouldn't be punished, it was saying what is the difference when shooting people in war.

 

[Shoe1]

It’s perfectly fine for a person to withdraw consent.

or perhaps give consent to have sex with one person, but then say no once a second person is encouraged to join in by the first bloke. And it is perfectly fine to give consent for one type of sex but say no if another type of sex starts to take place.

So arguing that the girl willingly went with jdb doesn’t have any bearing on things. The question is whether at some point consensual sex turned into a rape.