Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes. Can't be any clearer than that.
Be careful what you are wishing for though because many criminals can afford the very best top lawyers who get them off every day of the week. When such people are found 'not guilty' do you want the state ie you paying their bill ?

So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit.

Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.

jm08

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads.

The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves.

I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course.

And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:

I never said that what they said is equivalent to an anti semitic rant. I was pointing out, and I said I was pointing out, that people can lose jobs, sponsorship etc for something that wasn't a crime.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was very clear when I said that people have found their career in ruins because of something they did that wasn't a crime.

And no, I'm not saintly. I've made mistakes. That doesn't mean I'm a cnut though. It doesn't mean I treat women like sh1t.

Their behaviour and their language was degrading and offensive.

Grayson

jm08 wrote: »

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

You sure that's the same interview Francie was talking about? There's no mention of men being evil/bad/etc...

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit.

Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.

Excuse me. I am absolutely honest. If there is a way for him to not pay his bill, I couldn't care less about that either. There must be people all the time that lose their cases because they can't afford the best or even close. If you do engage the best, that your (or his in this case )business. But don't be boohooing afterwards.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Excuse me. I am absolutely honest. If there is a way for him to not pay his bill, I couldn't care less about that either. There must be people all the time that lose their cases because they can't afford the best or even close. If you do engage the best, that your (or his in this case )business. But don't be boohooing afterwards.

Ok, honestly tell us why you would have no problem paying legal bills relating to a crime you didn't commit?

Boohooing?! Christ, god forbid you're ever accused of a crime you didn't commit and get left with a hefty legal bill. I suspect you'll change your tune then.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

I never said that what they said is equivalent to an anti semitic rant. I was pointing out, and I said I was pointing out, that people can lose jobs, sponsorship etc for something that wasn't a crime.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was very clear when I said that people have found their career in ruins because of something they did that wasn't a crime.

And no, I'm not saintly. I've made mistakes. That doesn't mean I'm a cnut though. It doesn't mean I treat women like sh1t.

Their behaviour and their language was degrading and offensive.

It is quite clearly not misrepresenting what you said, you referenced Mel Gibson, not me.

How do we know you're not a cnut though? Cos you say so? You say their.. im specifically referencing PJ, what did he say that was degrading and offensive? Again, they're are many people who engage in group sex (of both genders) and neither party see themselves as being degraded. How did PJ specifically treat this particular woman like sh1t?

Are you referring to the use of the word 'sluts' as being offensive? Do you find the alleged victims description of Dana Florence as "acting slutty" equally offensive?

facehugger99

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

Ok, honestly tell us why you would have no problem paying legal bills relating to a crime you didn't commit?

Boohooing?! Christ, god forbid you're ever accused of a crime you didn't commit and get left with a hefty legal bill. I suspect you'll change your tune then.

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

Yeah, really self serving consider the abuse she's been receiving :rolleyes:

tretorn

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Were you aware that in her first statement to police Dara said that when she went upstairs she heard "aggressive male moaning", when asked if she meant a "sensual moaning" she responded no.
She later completely changed that statement to say she just heard sex.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PJ having penetrative sex with the woman accusing him of rape. PJ says he never had sex with her.

Something prompted her to open the door on what she believed was people having sex and to walk far enough into the bedroom to see just who was there, she thought it might have been her friend Emily.

Do you wonder why she would have done that?

Would you walk in if you believed your friend was having sex?

Or would you be more likely to only push that door open and walk right into the room if you heard something that made you worry that your female friend was in distress?
That's the only circumstance I'd do it in. I'd have to be very very concerned before I'd interrupt someone.

In the trial Paddy Jackson said that despite him having sex with the young lady involved in the case that is real romantic interest lay in Dara.

His behaviour didn't suggest that.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Dara's head was turned by the subsequent attentions of a rugby star.
Or maybe she liked him too and was annoyed at that what she saw and happier to believe the girl played an active role.

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

PJ waved Dara in, he wasnt a bit concerned. Olding was spreadesgled with the womans head between his legs, the police were told oldings hands were on the victims head, Dara said they werent.
Dara was 100 per cent sure no woman was under threat in that house.
If she had any doubt she wouldnt have left her friend alone there.She left and the next the friend heard from her pals was the text or call saying Dara had seen a threesome.
I dont know how anyone cant understand how the jury arrived at their decision, to be honest Im surprised it took them four hours to come back with the verdict.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit.

Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.

I'd allow people to claim money back but means test it. There's no reason a person with a hundred million in the bank should be able to claim back. On the other hand there's no reason someone should go broke.

I'd like to see some kind of self regulation within the legal professions to insure that their charges don't get too excessive. But that's never going to happen.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

If I'm boring you, dont bother replying with disingenuous drivel.

TomSweeney

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Were you aware that in her first statement to police Dara said that when she went upstairs she heard "aggressive male moaning", when asked if she meant a "sensual moaning" she responded no.
She later completely changed that statement to say she just heard sex.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PJ having penetrative sex with the woman accusing him of rape. PJ says he never had sex with her.

Something prompted her to open the door on what she believed was people having sex and to walk far enough into the bedroom to see just who was there, she thought it might have been her friend Emily.

Do you wonder why she would have done that?

Would you walk in if you believed your friend was having sex?

Or would you be more likely to only push that door open and walk right into the room if you heard something that made you worry that your female friend was in distress?
That's the only circumstance I'd do it in. I'd have to be very very concerned before I'd interrupt someone.

In the trial Paddy Jackson said that despite him having sex with the young lady involved in the case that is real romantic interest lay in Dara.

His behaviour didn't suggest that.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Dara's head was turned by the subsequent attentions of a rugby star.
Or maybe she liked him too and was annoyed at that what she saw and happier to believe the girl played an active role.

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

Jesus.

Now I'm confused again.

Fann Linn

facehugger99 wrote: »

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

Making assumptions and second guessing now about the main witness.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.

Again the fairly petty and petulant insinuation that they got away with something. Sad

Mrsmum

facehugger99 wrote: »

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

I didn't see this anywhere but were the lights on or off in the bedroom ?

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the fairly petty and petulant insinuation that they got away with something. Sad

You're sad seeing what isn't there. See following post where I said If I had just got a not guilty verdict myself I would say "wasn't I right to chose X barrister". Nothing to do with getting away with it, just relief not to be behind bars.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

It is quite clearly not misrepresenting what you said, you referenced Mel Gibson, not me.

How do we know you're not a cnut though? Cos you say so? You say their.. im specifically referencing PJ, what did he say that was degrading and offensive? Again, they're are many people who engage in group sex (of both genders) and neither party see themselves as being degraded. How did PJ specifically treat this particular woman like sh1t?

Are you referring to the use of the word 'sluts' as being offensive? Do you find the alleged victims description of Dana Florence as "acting slutty" equally offensive?

Yes I mentioned mel gibson. I never said what Gibson said and what the players said were equivalent. I mentioned it specifically to show how someone can say something that ruins their career but not commit a crime in the process.

Go back and show where I made an equivalency. If I'd done it I would be defending it. There's no reason for me to say something to immediately deny it.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

I thought it was Newstalk I heard her on. But I switch between RYE and NT on the commute, so could be wrong.

Basically all the male contributions were bad, from the defendant's to Willie John to male rugby and not a word, or single syllable about women's responsibilities

Fairly clear agenda there and it isn't to prevent rape primarily.

alchemist33

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Yes I mentioned mel gibson. I never said what Gibson said and what the players said were equivalent. I mentioned it specifically to show how someone can say something that ruins their career but not commit a crime in the process.

Go back and show where I made an equivalency. If I'd done it I would be defending it. There's no reason for me to say something to immediately deny it.

But that's my point, they're not equivalent so not relevant.

meeeeh

alchemist33 wrote: »

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

I don't want to police people's private life but if their toxic attitudes spill into public life then don't expect me to applaud them. If they want to work in a call centre or cleaning or some anonymous job then I am sure they will be fine but they are not entitled to represent their country and be idolized by millions.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

But that's my point, they're not equivalent so not relevant.

The situation is similar even if the content isn't. They don't have to be exactly the same. I made that clear as well.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

I don't want to police people's private life but if their toxic attitudes spill into public life then don't expect me to applaud them. If they want to work in a call centre or cleaning or some anonymous job then I am sure they will be fine but they are not entitled to represent their country and be idolized by millions.

Will you tell your son it is stupid to put people on pedestals just because they have talent with a ball? Will you tell your daughter not to get footless drunk and end up in strangers bedrooms?

Will you tell them that if they make a mistake their careers are basically over and that one of their parents proudly saw to it that a number of people's careers ended?

Grayson

alchemist33 wrote: »

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

Bank of Ireland do have rules on what employees can say and do. Sending a message like their whatsapp using company resources or during company time would involve instant dismissal.

Using a freedom of information request you can request to see any communications between bank of ireland employees that mention you.

It's even more strict for people who are public figures. They are being paid to be representatives of a company. As such if they commit any actions that may not reflect the values of the company they can face disciplinary measures.

I said it before, could you imagine a company like BoI maintaining a relationship with someone who had made an anti semitic rant or was found to be sending anti semitic messages? I mention that because although it's not the same (I have to add that disclaimer for people who don't understand what an example is) you can see how someones actions can affect their employment.

take OJ Simpson. Not guilty of a crime but had sponsorships cut because of his image problems.

jm08

alchemist33 wrote: »

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

CEO (Michael Sodan) resigned a couple of years ago because he accessed a porn site from his desk which was against company policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2004/0530/50702-boi/

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Bank of Ireland do have rules on what employees can say and do. Sending a message like their whatsapp using company resources or during company time would involve instant dismissal.

Using a freedom of information request you can request to see any communications between bank of ireland employees that mention you.

It's even more strict for people who are public figures. They are being paid to be representatives of a company. As such if they commit any actions that may not reflect the values of the company they can face disciplinary measures.

I said it before, could you imagine a company like BoI maintaining a relationship with someone who had made an anti semitic rant or was found to be sending anti semitic messages? I mention that because although it's not the same (I have to add that disclaimer for people who don't understand what an example is) you can see how someones actions can affect their employment.

take OJ Simpson. Not guilty of a crime but had sponsorships cut because of his image problems.

Sweet sweet irony.:rolleyes: You make a pathetic jab and AGAIN, use a ridiculous example. OJ did commit the murder (everyone knows it) hence why he wrote the book "If i did murder them.. this is how id do it" His sponsorship were cut because he's a murderer. As we now know, the glove didn't fit, because it shrank. OJ was also successfully sued in a Civil Case for the murders. I'd wager my life savings that the complainant won't be doing likewise successfully. Perhaps you can choose less ludicrous examples.

alchemist33

jm08 wrote: »

CEO (Michael Sodan) resigned a couple of years ago because he accessed a porn site from his desk which was against company policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2004/0530/50702-boi/

But, as with the point above, that's for things done at work or using work equipment. Not private messages unconnected to work.

facehugger99

Grayson wrote: »

Bank of Ireland do have rules on what employees can say and do. Sending a message like their whatsapp using company resources or during company time would involve instant dismissal.
.

Never put anything in an email or text message that you aren't happy to read aloud to your family and colleagues.

It's a very sensible rule to live by.

People thinking their texts are private, - they're not.