Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Muahahaha

CatFromHue wrote: »

Is this true?

My understanding is that CC has told LI that they wanted out of the sponsorship deal before Jackson was signed.

Thats the line London Irish are pushing to save face. But it went down on Twitter whereby a bunch of people tweeted them asking about their sponsorship and Paddy Jackson. Soon after they had dropped their sponsorship and replied to the people who tweeted them as below.

Also Cash Converters were only 8 months into a 3 year sponsorship deal, this wasnt a case of them not renewing a deal, it was them walking away from it altogether which tells you the real reason behind it.

So despite the official line the controversy over Paddy Jackson has cost London Irish a sponsor, with perhaps another in Guinness to follow.

https://twitter.com/cash_converters/status/1136292332591095809

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thats the line London Irish are pushing to save face. But it went down on Twitter whereby a bunch of people tweeted them asking about their sponsorship and Paddy Jackson. Soon after they had dropped their sponsorship and replied to the people who tweeted them as below.

Also Cash Converters were only 8 months into a 3 year sponsorship deal, this wasnt a case of them not renewing a deal, it was them walking away from it altogether which tells you the real reason behind it.

So despite the official line the controversy over Paddy Jackson has cost London Irish a sponsor, with perhaps another in Guinness to follow.

https://twitter.com/cash_converters/status/1136292332591095809

:D I think Cash Converters came out of that tweet worse tbh.

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D I think Cash Converters came out of that tweet worse tbh.

Its certainly a bit puke inducing when a loan shark and pawn broker start taking the moral high ground, Ive seen it all now

Yeah_Right

Of course the fact London Irish got promoted and that was going to cost CC more as part of their deal, had nothing to do with them wanting out.

paw patrol

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D I think Cash Converters came out of that tweet worse tbh.

a shower of bastards almost as low as pay-day loan companies

FrancieBrady

paw patrol wrote: »

a shower of bastards almost as low as pay-day loan companies

Diageo will have no scruples if it comes to a buck either.

ILoveYourVibes

Muahahaha wrote: »

Its certainly a bit puke inducing when a loan shark and pawn broker start taking the moral high ground, Ive seen it all now

Its not what you do it's how you do it.

ILoveYourVibes

Lol london Irish its hardly liverpool is it!

Muahahaha

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Of course the fact London Irish got promoted and that was going to cost CC more as part of their deal, had nothing to do with them wanting out.

ah here that is some serious reaching. They would have known London Irish were likely to get promoted when they signed up to a three year deal last September. Even then you don't know what is in the contract.

paw patrol wrote: »

a shower of bastards almost as low as pay-day loan companies

oh they are as low as pay day loan companies because they do that too
https://www.cashconverters.co.uk/services/personal-loans

alchemist33

I guess Diageo don't see any irony here given what their products can lead to

blackwhite

Muahahaha wrote: »

Diageo says "We are meeting the club this week to discuss our serious concerns regarding their decision, which is not consistent with our values"

Serious concerns and his signing not being consistent with their values sounds like the PR language of a break up to me. Cash Converters dropped their sponsorship of London Irish last week after some people started tweeting them complaining about Jackson.

Declan Kidney clearly did not forsee this happening, the water was supposed to be under the bridge. If they lose a blue chip sponsor like Guinness over Paddy Jackson and more sponsors follow then the board will be furious with Kidney for pushing the idea.

Cash Converters and London Irish has agreed to part ways before any of the exiles signings for next season were announced - so Jackson didn’t actually impact on the decision.

Cash Converters used Twitter to try and portray some “alternate facts” afterwards (without ever actually actually mentioning Jackson or referring to any signings) - just looking for some opportunistic goodwill.

The Diageo statement is much more serious for London Irish to deal with - they’ve been a key partner for the club for decades and even the suggestion that they could walk away means they’ll need to thread very carefully.

irishproduce

You have to remark that the twitter bullies like to get their way.
It can't be avoided. They'll harass and bully to make sure the men (who were found not guilty, since the jury seemed to accept the goings on that night were consensual) will not be employable again, time limited as their career is and all.

They're disgusting. The bullies.

Faugheen

irishproduce wrote: »

You have to remark that the twitter bullies like to get their way.
It can't be avoided. They'll harass and bully to make sure the men (who were found not guilty, since the jury seemed to accept the goings on that night were consensual) will not be employable again, time limited as their career is and all.

They're disgusting. The bullies.

Sigh, this misinformation is brought up time and time again and it is simply not true.

Not guilty doesn’t mean the jury thought anything other than the case couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

irishproduce

Exactly. They had doubts since the defence argued it was all adults enjoying themselves.

mfceiling

Muahahaha wrote: »

ah here that is some serious reaching. They would have known London Irish were likely to get promoted when they signed up to a three year deal last September. Even then you don't know what is in the contract.

How did they know LI would get promoted before the season even started?
I'd assume the contract had a clause that the sponsorship deal would increase based on promotion...You think CC knew that LI would get promoted therefore would have known that their sponsorship would have increased.

anewme

Muahahaha wrote: »

Unusual for a sponsor to so publically come out against a player, there must be ructions going on in the background over his signing. Id guess Guinness were against it and said as much in private but London Irish ploughed ahead with the signing anyway. And now Guinness have gone public over the disagreement which could mean the end of their sponsorship of London Irish. It would also make it more difficult for them to attract new blue chip sponsors as a result. Jacksons signing is now causing them a headache they didn't envisage.

Plus Cash Converters ( huge UK sponsor)pulled out last week in similar circumstances.

Wheeliebin30

Faugheen wrote: »

Sigh, this misinformation is brought up time and time again and it is simply not true.

Not guilty doesn’t mean the jury thought anything other than the case couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Erm so not guilty...,,,

Guy:Incognito

Pawn brokers who prey on the poor and charge people more than 1000% interest on payday loans are not in any position to be taking moral high ground.


Plus, he was found not guilty .

And before the "just look at his whatsapp messages" **** rolls around again, only 1 message released was his and there was **** all in it.

Guy:Incognito

How many people on here would be going around saying "actually they just couldn't prove the case against me" if they were found not guilty in court and people commented on their innocence?

Faugheen

irishproduce wrote: »

Exactly. They had doubts since the defence argued it was all adults enjoying themselves.

...that still doesn't mean the jury believed everything was consensual!

You have literally made that up to suit a narrative.

The only thing you know for sure is that they couldn't find them guilty beyond reasonable doubt. They may believe everything was consensual, but you can't use the verdict to say that as an absolute fact. So stop doing that:

Faugheen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How many people on here would be going around saying "actually they just couldn't prove the case against me" if they were found not guilty in court and people commented on their innocence?

You'd be called a liar if you said the jury thought everything was consensual.

I have worked in the legal profession. Don't tell me what verdicts mean and what the jury thinks by delivering a verdict.

Guy:Incognito

Faugheen wrote: »

You'd be called a liar if you said the jury thought everything was consensual.

I have worked in the legal profession. Don't tell me what verdicts mean and what the jury thinks by delivering a verdict.

Where did I say anything about what the jury thought?

Strange that this case in particular you seem to have an interest in maintaining that people who are acquitted are basically guilty.

Whats the point of court cases at all, sure no one is innocent.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

You'd be called a liar if you said the jury thought everything was consensual.

I have worked in the legal profession. Don't tell me what verdicts mean and what the jury thinks by delivering a verdict.

The verdict means they have exactly the same status as before the trial started.

Guy:Incognito

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The verdict means they have exactly the same status as before the trial started.

Only in the eyes of the law and sure who cares about that.

Everyone knows the real truth is what people on twitter think.

Faugheen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Strange that this case in particular you seem to have an interest in maintaining that people who are acquitted are basically guilty.

Whats the point of court cases at all, sure no one is innocent.

Point where I said people were guilty, please?

I'm pointing out people claiming the jury believed everything was consensual, when there is no evidence or statement to back up that claim.

The jury never said 'we believe everything was consensual' and no jury ever says that. They can believe either side but if the evidence doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt (which it didn't in this case), they can't possibly find anyone guilty, whether they themselves believed it was rape or not.

And yes, they're 'presumed innocent'. They were never found 'innocent'. That's how the judicial system works.

I'll repeat this again, you can not say what the jury thought other than they couldn't find guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can guess, but you can't present as absolute fact like what was done earlier.

Why have you such an issue with that?

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The verdict means they have exactly the same status as before the trial started.

That's not what I'm arguing, Francie.

The poster said the jury thought everything was consensual, which they cannot say as absolute fact.

Guy:Incognito

Faugheen wrote: »

Point where I said people were guilty, please?

I'm pointing out people claiming the jury believed everything was consensual, when there is no evidence or statement to back up that claim.

The jury never said 'we believe everything was consensual' and no jury ever says that. They can believe either side but if the evidence doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt (which it didn't in this case), they can't possibly find anyone guilty, whether they themselves believed it was rape or not.

And yes, they're 'presumed innocent'. They were never found 'innocent'. That's how the judicial system works.

I'll repeat this again, you can not say what the jury thought other than they couldn't find guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You can guess, but you can't present as absolute fact like what was done earlier.

Why have you such an issue with that?

Again, where have I said anything about what the jury thought?


Youre clearly trying to imply they are guilty or trying to fudge the verdict by waffling around semantics. They were found not guilty, end of story, no discussion or qualification needed.and certainly no hounding out of jobs by twitter mobs.

Not guilty would be perfectly adequate if it was you that got that verdict I'd say.

Guy:Incognito

Faugheen wrote: »

That's not what I'm arguing, Francie.

The poster said the jury thought everything was consensual, which they cannot say as absolute fact.

"The poster" said no such thing.

You may need to read the names of who you are quoting and replying to.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

That's not what I'm arguing, Francie.

The poster said the jury thought everything was consensual, which they cannot say as absolute fact.

The jury were asked to decide if the men were guilty of a non consensual act. They decided that they weren't.
They didn't believe the prosecution or the alleged victim who were most definitely saying that.

Faugheen

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Again, where have I said anything about what the jury thought?


Youre clearly trying to imply they are guilty or trying to fudge the verdict by waffling around semantics. They were found not guilty, end of story, no discussion or qualification needed.and certainly no hounding out of jobs by twitter mobs.

Not guilty would be perfectly adequate if it was you that got that verdict I'd say.

I never said you did, but you made a statement about 'everyone being guilty, what's the point of trials?' When I was clarifying what I meant.

I'm not trying to fudge anything. For the last time, the poster said 'the jury believed everything was consensual', which is a lie.

I've already said the jury couldn't have found them guilty, so I don't know why you keep saying that to me.

How about you stop accusing me of sh*t and actually engage properly? One poster made a false claim about the jury believed everything was consensual and you keep trying to argue a toss with me while pointing out you never said anything of the sort.