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

Faugheen

Here we go wrote: »

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-I,Conspectus, being of somewhat sound mind do hereby solemnly swear to perma ban anyone that posts anything about the woman that may identify her.

This includes(but not limited to) her name,occupation,parents names,occupations,friends names.


Ye have already seen what the defendants in this case are willing to do to anyone allegedly slandering them and the Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland will do to anyone naming the woman.

I'm sure Boards.ie would have no problem in handing over your details if a Section 8 came in the door.

Section 8 explained
https://www.dataprotection.ie/docs/Disclosures-Permitted-under-Section-8-of-the-Data-Protection-Act-Section/y/237.htm

This thread will be locked for 1 hour to let this sink in to everyone's head.

Not that I know or want to know who the person is and I do belive in the law that protects people coming forward as any breach may intimidate future victims of such crimes reporting it and any and all blame of innocent people brought to court should lie on the police/dpp for going forward in such cases not the accuser, my I ask is it a truly illigal to name her in this duristicsion just like the Jamie bulger case can the U.K. Courts impose there laws on citizens of a different state who riside in a different state

I don't know if the Gardai could do anything about it per say, but she definitely could.

Similar to Jackson suing Aodhan O Riordain, even thought he lives in a different jurisdiction.

I don't know why anyone would want to know this anyway. She's entitled to anonymity, let her have it. The only people who genuinely care are those who believed she wasn't raped and she filed a false allegation (innocent until proven guilty works both ways, btw).

As for the lads, they won't be sacked because they were on trial for rape.

What they may get sacked for is the events leading up to the alleged incident and how they conducted themselves.

Also, comments from Stuart Oldings barrister that 3 middle class women wouldn't have let a rape happen or Jackson accusing her of not telling the truth and using Ulster and Ireland's names as if he's on some sort of pedestal won't go down well with sponsors. You may not like it, but all of that and the WhatsApp messages, that's on them and nobody else.

The boasting of their exploits when a woman was left bleeding as well won't help their case. They can say they didn't know all they want, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

At least Olding has apologised for the hurt he caused to her, Jackson hasn't. That stands against him as well.

RuMan

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be perfectly honest RuMan, if they were sports professionals I would expect that they would behave like sports professionals, and not the utter scumbags that they are. I can say that without fear of being sued for defamation, because the evidence that they are utter scumbags is already in the public domain. Their behaviour and their attitudes towards other people are not what I would expect of sports professionals, and they are entirely responsible for the consequences of their own actions, attitudes and behaviours.

They should have given consideration to that before they behaved the way they did, and I know it was mentioned earlier that consideration must be given to the fact that they are young, but implying that their age or their immaturity should be a mitigating factor in defence of their attitudes and behaviours, does a disservice to the vast majority of young men the same age as them who would never even think to behave the way they did, or treat any woman the way they did, and I can tell you now for a fact that if my son were ever to display the attitudes and behaviours that they did, a trial before a jury of his peers would be the least of his worries.

How exactly did Jackson behave like an " utter scumbag"?

He had a few drinks and what hecbelieves was consensual sex with a woman. He then sent one whatsapp message in a private group discussion.

He was charged with rape and a jury found him not guilty

Please explain what part of his behaviour makes him an "utter scumbag"?
I respect the law and due process. Why do you think you can disregard the verdict of a jury?

the_pen_turner

this is a huge threat to democrocy. what they are saying is that we want the system to work and punish people but if we dont agree with the findings then we want that system ignored and mob rule to take over.
the core rinciples of inocent until proven guilt are being threatened by this crap.

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

I doubt the phone of a young woman of a similar age would be butterflies and sugar cubes. Several I know would be quite graphic in their view of young men. Would you argue all women are trash too?

You see I don't believe it's as common from men or women as people are saying here at all. I think people are saying it's commonplace so as to minimise PJ and his mates conduct.

bloodless_coup

Mrsmum wrote: »

Just on the not guilty/innocent thing people ie everyone will have to accept the verdict of not guilty and be happy with that.

But leave that case aside - if you look out your window one night and see the young lad next door smashing your car windows, you yell at him and he looks up at you so you see him clear as a bell. You get him taken to court & there you have no witness bar yourself but his parents back him up that he was in bed asleep and he is found not guilty. So legally he is not guilty and you must live with that but actually he is as guilty as sin and certainly not innocent. So you see there is a difference.

You are assuming the person making the accusation is 100% correct and 100% trustworthy and reliable. This is never the case. What if it was his twin or a case of mistaken identity?

What if I accuse you of being in a pedophile ring. The accusation holds enough weight for it to be investigated and goes to court. You are quickly found not guilty but sure everyone just ignores that and you lose your job and reputation. I wonder then would you be arguing the fine points of "found innocent vs not guilty"

Ash.J.Williams

Mrsmum wrote: »

You see I don't believe it's as common from men or women as people are saying here at all. I think people are saying it's commonplace so as to minimise PJ and his mates conduct.

I'd well believe it's worse than you think

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

You see I don't believe it's as common from men or women as people are saying here at all. I think people are saying it's commonplace so as to minimise PJ and his mates conduct.

Maybe it's just not common in your social circle but it's common in some both male and female.
If there was a crude joke going around for example when I was at college. It would be sent to some people and not to others. People knew who'd take offence to things and who'd laugh it off.

RuMan

Disregarding the courts verdicts, death threats? Its a worrying development.
IRFU should re instate them immediately we cannot allow ourselves to be bullied by these twitter thugs.

Mrsmum

doylefe wrote: »

You are assuming the person making the accusation is 100% correct and 100% trustworthy and reliable. This is never the case. What if it was his twin or a case of mistaken identity?

What if I accuse you of being in a pedophile ring. The accusation holds enough weight for it to be investigated and goes to court. You are quickly found not guilty but sure everyone just ignores that and you lose your job and reputation. I wonder then would you be arguing the fine points of "found innocent vs not guilty"

I'd have to be happy with being found not guilty because that is as good as it gets and live with no smoke without fire, wouldn't I.

LLMMLL

the_pen_turner wrote: »

this is a huge threat to democrocy. what they are saying is that we want the system to work and punish people but if we dont agree with the findings then we want that system ignored and mob rule to take over.
the core rinciples of inocent until proven guilt are being threatened by this crap.

No it's not being threatened. You're only innocent in the eyes of the criminal law.

facehugger99

RuMan wrote: »

Disregarding the courts verdicts, death threats? Its a worrying development.
IRFU should re instate them immediately

Not a hope. The sponsors will decide their fate, most likely already have. No company will pay millions to have their logo worn by people who many would consider, behaved despicable.

The jury's decision matters not.

Getoffmytrain

Conspectus wrote: »

The defendants could sue here and the PPSNI could ask for (and get) a European arrest warrant to extradite someone to the UK.

No chance they would get an E.A.W. for a minor offence.

Mrsmum

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Maybe it's just not common in your social circle but it's common in some both male and female.
If there was a crude joke going around for example when I was at college. It would be sent to some people and not to others. People knew who'd take offence to things and who'd laugh it off.

You see there is a big difference between a crude joke and speaking in a vile, crude way about actual people. I suppose you wouldn't mind your daughter being the subject of crude as you like 'boy talk '. And remember it doesn't even have to be true, they will apparently just make up stuff so as to be big men opposite their friends.

RuMan

facehugger99 wrote: »

Not a hope. The sponsors will decide their fate, most likely already have. No company will pay millions to have their logo worn by people who many would consider, behaved despicable.

The jury's decision matters not.

Wow

Cyrus

LLMMLL wrote: »

Threats of violence towards someone involved in controversy is nothing new and shouldn't be taken as indicative of anything other than the craziness of the individual who sent it. For example many feminist campaigners have had rape threats made against them.

The whole "sue me" thing is a pretty standard response when people believe defamation threats are used heavy handedly to try and silence people.

People are allowed to protest.

I.dont see anything that threatens democracy here.

You aren't looking at it correctly then

facehugger99

RuMan wrote: »

Wow

Stupid post.

You knew exactly what was meant.

Enjoy your thanks.

tritium

Conspectus wrote: »

The defendants could sue here and the PPSNI could ask for (and get) a European arrest warrant to extradite someone to the UK.

Not looking to get into a debate on something you responded to on the basis of an earlier mod post however UK courts would be unable to make any order compelling anonymity in another jurisdiction

Doesn’t mean naming her isn’t scummy btw

Faugheen

tritium wrote: »

Not looking to get into a debate on something you responded to on the basis of an earlier mod post however UK courts would be unable to make any order compelling anonymity in another jurisdiction

Doesn’t mean naming her isn’t scummy btw

I don't know the full ins and outs when it comes to authorities, but she can still sue in another jurisdiction if she wanted to.

The Wordress

Mrsmum wrote: »

You see there is a big difference between a crude joke and speaking in a vile, crude way about actual people. I suppose you wouldn't mind your daughter being the subject of crude as you like 'boy talk '. And remember it doesn't even have to be true, they will apparently just make up stuff so as to be big men opposite their friends.

Their Lad chat really really disgusted me.

Whatever about being found innocent of raping the girl but there was no need for the pathetic 'banter' after. So disrespectful and degrading.

They are well paid sportsmen who should be good role models. For that alone I wouldn't let them near a pitch in an Ireland jersey.

I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round.

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Wow

I don't know what you don't get here.

Sponsors will do the talking. They provide Ulster and the IRFU with a lot of money. If they don't want two lads who left a woman in hysterics and bleeding and then boasted about being top shaggers and spitroasting afterwards, then that is all on them.

Jackson knew the woman was bleeding as well, so the idea that they weren't aware won't wash.

Tiger Woods cheated on his wife with multiple women and sponsors left him in their droves. He wasn't even in court for anything.

If the sponsors say no, then they're done in Ireland and that's on Jackson and Olding. Nobody else.

RuMan

The Wordress wrote: »

Their Lad chat really really disgusted me.

Whatever about being found innocent of raping the girl but there was no need for the pathetic 'banter' after. So disrespectful and degrading.

They are well paid sportsmen who should be good role models. For that alone I wouldn't let them near a pitch in an Ireland jersey.

I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary or their behaviour all round.

Really, u'd ban Jackson on the basis of his one whatsapp message ?
Astonishing.

The Wordress

RuMan wrote: »

Really, u'd ban Jackson on the basis of his one whatsapp message ?
Astonishing.

Yeah purely on one message!

The whole case lasting 9 weeks was about one message!

Faugheen

RuMan wrote: »

Really, u'd ban Jackson on the basis of his one whatsapp message ?
Astonishing.

You'd let Ulster and Irish Rugby lose out on a lot of money for a player who left a woman in hysterics and bleeding?

Especially a player who isn't even the best in his position in the country?

He's not that valuable, mate. They're done.

erica74

Katgurl wrote: »

Were you at the march? I was. That men are scum placard is a disgrace but does not represent everyone there. A woman came on and talked about being raped and told she had to wait two years for an appointment at the rape crisis centre. There is a need for support services. Women and men are raped and sexually assaulted every day. Most are never reported. Less than 8% of those which do result in convictions. It is too difficult to get a conviction across the line. But that is a separate matter. In the meantime there are victims (male and female) who need support.

She had to wait 2 years for an appointment with the RCC? In Ireland? Northern Ireland?

Silentcorner

I believe that the IRFU should allow the two players back into their previous roles, it is only right.

They have not been served well by the system in the North that allows defendants to be named in media, it is a barbaric system in my opinion.

I also think it is important to say that the young lady in this case, has shown herself to be a very self assured, articulate, brave, well mannered person who clearly has endured that very same barbaric system albeit in a different manner.

For the record, it must be appreciated, that she had absolutely no legal representation, she relies on the prosecution, who only treat her like any other witness.

Already, Minister Charlie Flanagan has indicated the government will urgently review how this state handles rape trials, with a view to allowing a victim full legal representation, which if implemented could have a very real impact on our disgraceful conviction rates.

So, those people, calling protesters all sorts of derogatory names should note, that protesting works, perhaps if they protested themselves they might affect change themselves, this change should not in any way threaten law abiding men.

RuMan

Faugheen wrote: »

I don't know what you don't get here.

Sponsors will do the talking. They provide Ulster and the IRFU with a lot of money. If they don't want two lads who left a woman in hysterics and bleeding and then boasted about being top shaggers and spitroasting afterwards, then that is all on them.

Jackson knew the woman was bleeding as well, so the idea that they weren't aware won't wash.

Tiger Woods cheated on his wife with multiple women and sponsors left him in their droves. He wasn't even in court for anything.

If the sponsors say no, then they're done in Ireland and that's on Jackson and Olding. Nobody else.

Thats not really true now is it.
Jackson passed out in his bed and the woman didnt leave the room in hysterics.
Jackson didnt boast about being a top shagger.

If you're looking to ban 2 players from playing for Ireland it should at least be based on their actions not the supposed actions of others.

Strazdas

The Wordress wrote: »

Their Lad chat really really disgusted me.

Whatever about being found innocent of raping the girl but there was no need for the pathetic 'banter' after. So disrespectful and degrading.

They are well paid sportsmen who should be good role models. For that alone I wouldn't let them near a pitch in an Ireland jersey.

I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round.

Also, the fact that this was intended to be a private conversation is neither here nor there. The players are not entirely blameless that we got to read all the texts ie. finding themselves the subject of a police investigation. Irrespective of being found not guilty of rape, they created a lot of problems for themselves that night and the following day.

tritium

The Wordress wrote: »

Their Lad chat really really disgusted me.

Whatever about being found innocent of raping the girl but there was no need for the pathetic 'banter' after. So disrespectful and degrading.

They are well paid sportsmen who should be good role models. For that alone I wouldn't let them near a pitch in an Ireland jersey.

I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round.

You’ve seen one snap of WhatsApp commentary, with the most famous of the 4 contributing one minor line!

Should their accuser lose her job for wearing Lacey underwear once too?

Ludicrious

the_pen_turner

Faugheen wrote: »

I don't know what you don't get here.

Sponsors will do the talking. They provide Ulster and the IRFU with a lot of money. If they don't want two lads who left a woman in hysterics and bleeding and then boasted about being top shaggers and spitroasting afterwards, then that is all on them.

Jackson knew the woman was bleeding as well, so the idea that they weren't aware won't wash.

Tiger Woods cheated on his wife with multiple women and sponsors left him in their droves. He wasn't even in court for anything.

If the sponsors say no, then they're done in Ireland and that's on Jackson and Olding. Nobody else.

i believe they should be able to go back to their careers but it would be very dificult to do so. if they were indevidual sports stars and not part of a team then it would be easier.
very few companies would put the reputation on the line by backing them even if they believe them and see that they are inocent. public perception would stop that

Mrsmum

Silentcorner wrote: »

I believe that the IRFU should allow the two players back into their previous roles, it is only right.

They have not been served well by the system in the North that allows defendants to be named in media, it is a barbaric system in my opinion.

I also think it is important to say that the young lady in this case, has shown herself to be a very self assured, articulate, brave, well mannered person who clearly has endured that very same barbaric system albeit in a different manner.

For the record, it must be appreciated, that she had absolutely no legal representation, she relies on the prosecution, who only treat her like any other witness.

Already, Minister Charlie Flanagan has indicated the government will urgently review how this state handles rape trials, with a view to allowing a victim full legal representation, which if implemented could have a very real impact on our disgraceful conviction rates.

So, those people, calling protesters all sorts of derogatory names should note, that protesting works, perhaps if they protested themselves they might affect change themselves, this change should not in any way threaten law abiding men.

I think naming defendants should cease immediately up North. It serves no purpose whatsoever and it's just wrong. However I think there was no way their names would not have got out being who there are.