Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes, but the question was whether the contract was with the IRFU or not. They may be similar contracts, but are they with Ulster or the IRFU?

Does it ultimately matter though?

MJohnston

Podge_irl wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes, but the question was whether the contract was with the IRFU or not. They may be similar contracts, but are they with Ulster or the IRFU?

Does it ultimately matter though?

Yes because Ireland has different laws to the North.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

Does it ultimately matter though?

Well it also matters in the case of any breach of contract discussions. The IRFU may have no legal 'skin in the game'.

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

I also think that people need to be objective, and let the benefit of the doubt flow both ways. The complainant was given the benefit of the doubt and her accusation was tested by a court and a jury. There seems to be absolutely no willingness to consider that the defendants deserve any similar benefit of the doubt.

They're free! They have totally had the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure when you think the complainant got the benefit of the doubt, but if you think her day in court was the justice she wanted after (at least thinking) she got raped, then you're mad.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

Why are you replying to my response to a completely different poster in a way that suggests I was responding to you?

I don't care who you were directing your casual sexism at, I reserve the right to call you out on it.

MJohnston wrote: »

I'll tell you my opinion - no matter what the actual truth was, it was a near absolute certainty that there was going to be a not guilty verdict.

Is it your opinion that they were guilty regardless of the verdict?

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

They're free! They have totally had the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not sure when you think the complainant got the benefit of the doubt, but if you think her day in court was the justice she wanted after (at least thinking) she got raped, then you're mad.

They aren't in jail. They have lost substantial freedoms.

She was given the benefit of the doubt. She made an accusation and the state arranged for 11 people to spend 9 weeks examining that accusation to see if they could put 4 men into prison for upto 15 years.

What more do you want? Automatic guilty verdicts? Let twitter decide?

And this with a significant amount of the facts of the case not even reported yet.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well it also matters in the case of any breach of contract discussions. The IRFU may have no legal 'skin in the game'.

They're not separate entities. Ulster Rugby are the IRFU (or part of it).

thomond2006

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-rugby-protest-3942619-Apr2018/

"We expect an answer to this letter".

What exactly makes these people entitled to an answer?

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

They aren't in jail. They have lost substantial freedoms.

They've the freedom to go and earn a **** ton of money playing games for a living in any one of 6 or 7 exotic countries. They're free.

Podge_irl

thomond2006 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-rugby-protest-3942619-Apr2018/

"We expect an answer to this letter".

What exactly makes these people entitled to an answer?

A sense of self-entitlement. I imagine it is a similar group of people to those who set up a petition demanding an inquest into the player's behaviour several hours after an inquest had been announced.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

They're not separate entities. Ulster Rugby are the IRFU (or part of it).

Yes. I know that. But the legal entities may be different (and probably have to be) for jurisdictional reasons. Ulster can be a branch of the IRFU, but to operate in NI, would have to be a legal entity there.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. I know that. But the legal entities may be different (and probably have to be) for jurisdictional reasons. Ulster can be a branch of the IRFU, but to operate in NI, would have to be a legal entity there.

I'm finding it reasonably difficult to find any actual information on this. I would also have assumed there would need to be a UK entity. Either way, the IRFU would be the parent entity of Ulster Rugby even if that were the case. There is no scenario I can think of were they wouldn't have "skin in the game" so to speak.

Sangre

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. I know that. But the legal entities may be different (and probably have to be) for jurisdictional reasons. Ulster can be a branch of the IRFU, but to operate in NI, would have to be a legal entity there.

No it wouldn't necessarily. A lot of companies operate 'branches' in other jurisdictions which are not separate legal entities. That's sort of the point of a 'branch' - its the same entity.

I have no idea if that is the case here though.

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

Why are you replying to my response to a completely different poster in a way that suggests I was responding to you?

I don't care who you were directing your casual sexism at, I reserve the right to call you out on it.

MJohnston wrote: »

I'll tell you my opinion - no matter what the actual truth was, it was a near absolute certainty that there was going to be a not guilty verdict.

Is it your opinion that they were guilty regardless of the verdict?

Casual sexism? Wha? You trying to tell me there aren't a bunch of men on Twitter and Facebook comments angry about them not being returned to play?

My opinion is that regardless of their actual guilt or innocence, the odds were always heavily stacked against the accuser of getting a conviction. Almost insurmountably so in a trial based nearly entirely on witness/plaintiff statements. The statistics are well established in that regard.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

I'm finding it reasonably difficult to find any actual information on this. I would also have assumed there would need to be a UK entity. Either way, the IRFU would be the parent entity of Ulster Rugby even if that were the case. There is no scenario I can think of were they wouldn't have "skin in the game" so to speak.

It comes down to who their contracts are with. I understand that they don't have central contracts, so their contracts are with Ulster. Ulster being a separate legal entity, that would leave the IRFU out of the mix.

If that's the situation. Which is what I was asking at the start. The IRFU clearly have oversight, Ulster being a branch, but legally may have no connection with the players.

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

She was given the benefit of the doubt. She made an accusation and the state arranged for 11 people to spend 9 weeks examining that accusation to see if they could put 4 men into prison for upto 15 years.

What more do you want? Automatic guilty verdicts? Let twitter decide?

You edited your post, to include like 5 times as much text as was in your original post. Seems a bit unfair.

That's not the benefit of the doubt, she didn't gain any benefit from it. Where is the benefit Venjur? Show me the benefit? What is her benefit? Remember, complainants don't take criminal cases, governments do.

What more do I want? PJ and SO can take a case against the CPS for malicious prosecution. If they want to clear their names, let them clear their names on the civil burden of proof.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

You edited your post, to include like 5 times as much text as was in your original post. Seems a bit unfair.

That's not the benefit of the doubt, she didn't gain any benefit from it. Where is the benefit Venjur? Show me the benefit? What is her benefit? Remember, complainants don't take criminal cases, governments do.

What more do I want? PJ and SO can take a case against the CPS for malicious prosecution. If they want to clear their names, let them clear their names on the civil burden of proof.

It's the benefit of the doubt. The PSNI didn't even want to progress the case, the court services opted to do so. The benefit is taking the accusation seriously and doing everything possible to prove it.

Do you also want accusers to have the benefit of outcome? The benefit of automatic belief?

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

Casual sexism? Wha? You trying to tell me there aren't a bunch of men on Twitter and Facebook comments angry about them not being returned to play?

My opinion is that regardless of their actual guilt or innocence, the odds were always heavily stacked against the accuser of getting a conviction. Almost insurmountably so in a trial based nearly entirely on witness/plaintiff statements. The statistics are well established in that regard.

If you can't see the inherent sexism in what you wrote then it's a funny debate we find ourselves in here.

And you didn't answer my question, I didn't ask for your opinion on due process, I asked if regardless of the verdict do you think they are guilty?

errlloyd

I don't understand how you think thats a benefit. The complainant is privileged to live in a society where the cops don't just laugh her out of the police station as she reports a gang rape.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

It comes down to who their contracts are with. I understand that they don't have central contracts, so their contracts are with Ulster. Ulster being a separate legal entity, that would leave the IRFU out of the mix.

If that's the situation. Which is what I was asking at the start. The IRFU clearly have oversight, Ulster being a branch, but legally may have no connection with the players.

Yeah, in terms of which law it falls under fair enough. I don't think there is a scenario they legally have no connection, but in terms of whose jurisdiction it falls under I would imagine its important.

OldRio

MJohnston wrote: »

Why not? Plenty of men like yourself on social media getting angry about the idea of them being asked to leave.

Angry? Deary me. You seem to be filling that particular role yourself.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I don't understand how you think thats a benefit. The complainant is privileged to live in a society where the cops don't just laugh her out of the police station as she reports a gang rape.

No, we all are.


She made an accusation. A lot of people spent months working to prove that accusation.

Criminal justice is more for society's benefit than an individuals, the benefit had they been successful would be justice for her and a solid foundation for a civil action.

They can't control the outcome, but her accusation was progressed despite there being doubts. She was given the benefit of the doubt and a trial was held to prove the accusation.

Former Former

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The PSNI didn't even want to progress the case

This is not fact and should not be described as such.

errlloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, we all are.

But we don't. We live in a society where the best lawyers become defense lawyers and charge lots of money and have huge teams. While state prosecutors are either journeyman level, or self sacrificing geniuses who are horrifically under resourced.

Where prosecutions are hampered by police forces that are disastrously under resources and balancing case loads far too big and far too varied for a job that is also barely renumerated above fast food workers.

And where there is such an education deficit that men who have the chance to be key witnesses, delete messages and plead silence.

Thousands didn't march at the weekend because paddy and stu got off. They marched because the system (here and the North) is completely stacked against genuine victims.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

This is not fact and should not be described as such.

Apologies you are correct. However there is an investigation as to whether a no charge application was over ruled or ignored so the facts will become available in due course.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

But we don't. We live in a society where the best lawyers become defense lawyers and charge lots of money and have huge teams. While state prosecutors are either journeyman level, or self sacrificing geniuses who are horrifically under resourced.

Where to start.

The best lawyers go nowhere near criminal law. If you want to make money as a lawyer you specialise in corporate or finance law, not criminal defence.

This case is a good example of the opposite of what you are saying. 3 of the 4 defendants ran out of money and were awarded free legal aid mid trial. Free legal aid is available to anyone who needs it. The prosecutor in this case is a serious heavy hitter. Compare his profile to the defendants counsel and see whether it supports your conclusion.

errlloyd wrote: »

Thousands didn't march at the weekend because paddy and stu got off. They marched because the system (here and the North) is completely stacked against genuine victims.

If you believe this then fair enough.

Paul Smeenus

Oh look! Ulster have a rugby game tonight! Lots of young bucks might get their first caps, including a standout from the recent U20s!

Sorry, as you were.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

This is not fact and should not be described as such.

Another misplaced statement of certainty

errlloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Where to start.

The best lawyers go nowhere near criminal law. If you want to make money as a lawyer you specialise in corporate or finance law, not criminal defence.

This case is a good example of the opposite of what you are saying. 3 of the 4 defendants ran out of money and were awarded free legal aid mid trial. Free legal aid is available to anyone who needs it. The prosecutor in this case is a serious heavy hitter. Compare his profile to the defendants counsel and see whether it supports your conclusion.



If you believe this then fair enough.

Hilariously of course, Paddy Jacksons barrister is a commercial law barrister based in London. So even with you being pedantic about the law in general when I clearly meant the criminal law, your post is still self defeating. Blane's Barrister was the fourth highest earning Barrister in Northern Ireland last year. None of those who qualified for legal aid would have been granted it for those legal teams if the case didn't overrun.

Toby Hedworth wasn't in the top ten and I can't be arsed getting the full list.

I'm done. In summary. I beleive the girl. Playing for Ireland is a privilege not a right. The lads benefited from a system in their favour.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Another misplaced statement of certainty

I'm sure whatever caused them to wait over a year before progressing with the case will eventually come to light.