Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

Glad to see AOR getting just deserts for throwing around class tropes.

His constituency is Dublin bay north FFS.

Uncharted

Just in case I wasn't clear the first time......

Im delighted for the Senator.


Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

razorblunt

torqtorq wrote: »

Murray and Zebo have had no issue with sponsors.

They make a video recording of themselves having a threesome - which finds its way onto the internet - but yet they are paragons of virtue with PR teams drip feeding softly softly press articles.

These men have been found not guilty and should be treated as such.

Murray and Zebo spent a night with another consenting adult doing consentual things. The two are in no way similar.

C__MC wrote: »

Social media at its best lately. There is a petation going about for the 4 lads never to play rugby for Ireland again. You couldn’t make it up.

The world in general at the moment, case has been on for 3 months, almost 100 pages here and people still think all 4 were rugby players!

Franz Von Peppercorn

GreeBo wrote: »

Saying they got away with it is implying they are guilty. Saying that in public is not likely to be ignored.

Right. It’s the use of words. Any “getting away with it” phraseology is suspect.

torqtorq

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Somebody who proposes that that the complainant "be grilled in court" for so called false allegations, which you are clearly implying, looks very stupid indeed.

In fact the complainant would have a very good case for defamation against anybody alleging she made false allegations, when the jury didn't find that at all.

Its very interesting to see that you have no other interests in life bar this 1 thread.

22 posts and counting and all on this thread.

As you have a clear agenda it does make one wonder if you are in the PR.

GreeBo

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That you know of.

Have you had a medical professional check your partner after every sexual encounter?

Has your vagina ever cut someone's penis?
Are you sure? Have you had it checked by a professional?

super_furry

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Right. It’s the use of words. Any “getting away with it” phraseology is suspect.

Still don't think it's anywhere near strong enough to stand up in court and I suspect Jackson's camp know this, they just want to force O'Riordan into a retraction.

_Dara_

For Forks Sake wrote: »

And stupid and all as O'Riordans tweet was, it was nowhere near the most defamatory thing I've seen this week regarding the case.

Is social media making people dumb or what? I feel like this is basic stuff. Don’t defame someone. I remember as a child, you had to be SO careful making stealing accusations. When did people forget this?

Phoebas

GreeBo wrote: »

Saying they got away with it is implying they are guilty. Saying that in public is not likely to be ignored.

He didn't say they 'got away with it'. That is entirely your interpretation.

Faugheen

jimmynokia wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If you don't allow the media or the public in court then how can it be determined that the defendant gets a fair trial?

Absolute nonsense statement to make. You can put restrictions on what the media can report (naming complainants and defendants, for example) but to say court sittings should be behind closed doors completely is absolutely preposterous.

You are blind then, its because of social media and journalists the situatition is the way it is the lads where named but the girl was not, to stop the current situation going on and happening again is ban the press until the verdict is read out if you did not realise the sitation is between A and B not the public to decide thats what the jury is there for i think you need to take a reality check...

That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here.

Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable.

What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system.

I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested.

Uncharted

_Dara_ wrote: »

Is social media making people dumb or what? I feel like this is basic stuff. Don’t defame someone. I remember as a child, you had to be SO careful making stealing accusations. When did people forget this?

When broadband was rolled out nationwide......

Mrs Shuttleworth

GreeBo wrote: »

Saying they got away with it is implying they are guilty. Saying that in public is not likely to be ignored.

AOR didn't say they got away with it. He said he believed the woman but that the boys won.

AudreyHepburn

Canterelle wrote: »

It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a protest purely against the verdict but about the treatment of the complainant and rape victims who bring a case to court. Instead you’re just saying all these people are biased irrational eejits. Another poster thinks they just need a good night in coppers. And of course try to diminish the men who want to join the protest. In the clip they clearly say why they are there. They didn’t say the men were guilty of rape. What was your “humour” about?

But it is that simple - you’re using this case as an example of how all rape cases should not be dealt with even nothing that occurred is actually wrong and you’re only protesting in the first place because you don’t like the verdict.

Dress it up all you like but this case is what it’s really all about.


What do you want from all this exactly? For every man accused of rape to be locked up with no questions asked? For them to be denied fair tri? For all accusers to be believed without question?

GreeBo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Somebody who proposes that that the complainant "be grilled in court" for so called false allegations, which you are clearly implying, looks very stupid indeed.

In fact the complainant would have a very good case for defamation against anybody alleging she made false allegations, when the jury didn't find that at all.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but she was not on trial, hence the verdict from the jury implies zero about her.

People really need to learn how a trial works before spouting nonsense

For Forks Sake

_Dara_ wrote: »

Is social media making people dumb or what? I feel like this is basic stuff. Don’t defame someone. I remember as a child, you had to be SO careful making stealing accusations. When did people forget this?

You'd think, but basic common sense seems to be lacking.

The advise I give regarding posting on social media is basically if you wouldn't say it to someones face, or wouldn't like to see it printed on a 50 foot billboard, then don't post it online.

Canterelle

professore wrote: »

No but my partner would not be shy about telling me if I caused any lacerations or bleeding. I'm not married to a shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination. And we're down to this level now that I would have sex with my partner with no concern for her welfare.

Vigorous penis in vagina sex can cause tearing in the vagina. But that may be different to a laceration.

Heres Johnny

professore wrote: »

Heres Johnny wrote: »

People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously?
Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on.

The Rory Best thing is ridiculous. If a good friend of mine was accused of rape, and I genuinely believed he didn't do it, do I not have the right to provide a character witness and attend his trial?

Absolutely ridiculous.

Preventing them playing for Ireland - that's up to the team. They are innocent in the eyes of the law, so I can't see a good reason not to play any of them. But I suspect they will get a lot of boos.

The petition in question mentions stopping all 4 from playing.
2 are amateur and will never play for Ireland, nor have they in the past.
Just shows how poorly thought out and researched it is, yet I've seen many share it today.
It's just mob mentality at this stage.
But it's only social media, it will die down and male white privilege will continue to reign thank god!
Couldn't trust women to run anything.
That's the real reason there are so few in senior management or CEOs. Not any sexism they like to invent as the reason.

freshpopcorn

I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending.
One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?

RebelButtMunch

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending.
One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?

How do you know that all the men attending are gay?

Laois_Man

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think you'll find I'm not wrong.

If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election.

Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation.

O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself.

The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one.

Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team.

Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.

Actually the term is "Regain his seat" when he's a previous seat holder
The term is "Re-elected" when he's a current seat holder.

There's nothing spurious about people effectively saying you're guilty of rape without evidence. I also doubt the vast majority of rugby match going public are going to partake in pantomime nonsense about it.

jimmynokia

Faugheen wrote: »

That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here.

Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable.

What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system.

I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested.

You are proving yourslef to be a lost soul here, the jury is there to give a verdict,regadless of UK /BRITISH law it should be implemented. The problem is once again the foooking media and journalists which are now out in their droves and have been during the trial pushing their personal agenda on the issue and people tend to believe what is read in the papers or online so wake up and see the logic behind my comment.
How hard is that to take in ffs...

freshpopcorn

RebelButtMunch wrote: »

How do you know that all the men attending are gay?

In a relationship with another men/seeking men/etc. It's not rocket science.

hill16bhoy

Uncharted wrote: »

Pffft.....yeah.... because every rugby match iv attended,iv sat shoulder to shoulder with purple haired,angry at the planet ,feminazi,men- hating lynchmobs.

Get a grip.

"Feminazis", "lynch mobs".

Cute.

It's very, very easy to get tickets for provincial rugby matches, and anybody can buy them.

Uncharted

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

AOR didn't say they got away with it. He said he believed the woman but that the boys won.

AOR is facing into a costly sh¡tstorm and I for one am delighted.
It's high time someone was taken to task for their online populist gibberish....
He's an oppurtunistic band wagoner of the worst kind.
I hope he is made to climb down from his 'lofty' position.
Perhaps if he stood beside his troop of cackling penis haters on one of their many rallies,he might realise the air is not so 'rarified'...... particularly on a warm day.

keith_sixteen

super_furry wrote: »

Jackson would be well advised to keep his head down and stay quiet. Threatening politicians with spurious court cases would do little other than to keep the words Paddy Jackson, court and rape in the headlines.

LOL. Jackson has been in the headlines for months. Cat is out of the bag on that one. Nothing to lose as far as he is concerned. Delighted he is taking this action.

In any case, the words in the headlines are "Aodhán Ó Ríordáin" and "Defamation". Go take a look right now.

Canterelle

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But it is that simple - you’re using this case as an example of how all rape cases should not be dealt with even nothing that occurred is actually wrong and you’re only protesting in the first place because you don’t like the verdict.

Dress it up all you like but this case is what it’s really all about.


What do you want from all this exactly? For every man accused of rape to be locked up with no questions asked? For them to be denied fair tri? For all accusers to be believed without question?

Ah what’s the point. To be clear, I agree with the verdict. There was not enough to convict, so that was the only reasonable verdict. No point debating anything else with this mindset, I think it’s going over your head.

Strazdas

GreeBo wrote: »

Saying they got away with it is implying they are guilty. Saying that in public is not likely to be ignored.

Some people are suggesting though it might be rather unwise for Jackson to go down this route of suing AOR. It might not necessarily work to his advantage even if he was to be successful in the courtroom. He was declared not guilty in the trial, he doesn't need to hammer home this point.

RebelButtMunch

freshpopcorn wrote: »

In a relationship with another men/seeking men/etc. It's not rocket science.

I know what gay means, I'm asking how you know that all the men attending the march are gay?

Fitz*

Unfortunately, I think the reason why a lot of people are marching is because it is 'cool' to be seen marching or backing her. it is the trendy thing right now for young people, especially young early twenties females. That may sound very harsh but from what I can see from social media & social media trends that is what I can see. If this was not in the media, it would be a totally different story - would the same people care then? unfortunately I do not think so.

That is not to say I am 'picking sides'. I don't think it was unanimously not guilty myself on all charges. This whole saga has played out so badly. I hope it does not defer victims coming forward in the future.

GreeBo

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

AOR didn't say they got away with it. He said he believed the woman but that the boys won.

So if he believes the woman....he doesn't believe them.

2 + 2 = ?

Why did he take it down?