Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did anyone read the article? He won't play. Why would they bother risk the controversy. When Jackson played for Perpignon, they had an away game in Connacht. Jackson started every game up to till then but was left out of the entire squad for that match. They aren't stupid.

Spoilsports...who will they protest now?

hatrickpatrick

People should have the right to say literally anything they feel like saying in a private setting between family and/or friends, and should not be judged or penalised in any way for this in the event that it gets leaked into the public domain. End of story.

Ave Sodalis

What annoys me the most is the fact that people who refuse to admit that Paddy Jackson was found not guilty, are the very people who are ruining the chances for actual rape cases. Not guilty is not guilty. It took the people who actually knew the facts a very short time to decide on this.

Rape trials are difficult enough as it is. One of the biggest reasons for this is because one of the party is lying, and regardless of who, the innocent people will have their life destroyed. And so the details are gone over with a fine tooth comb. For a rape victim, that means reliving their trauma over and over in various different ways, to potentially not be believed anyway. That's why there are so few reported cases. For an innocent accused, it means standing there whilst someone makes up some of the most disgusting lies about you. You have to sit there and take it with decorum, knowing that they've probably already ruined your life. All a person has to do (let's face it, mostly women since male rape isn't as recognised) is to accuse someone of rape and they know that there's hardly ever any going back from it. These people need to be jailed themselves, but they can't based on a small chance they might still be telling the truth. And so rape victims have to give every little detail, over and over, and relive the trauma again and again. Accused victims have their reputation destroyed, even if they weren't even in the area at the time and have to live their life with the consequences of being a rapist despite being entirely innocent of the crime.

What's needed most to help victims is clarity on cases. The most clarity on cases, the less need for a grilling and the less likely chance of false accusations. I can't see how anyone with actual experience in the process could continue to try and slander Jackson, instead of being delighted that it ended up a relatively clear cut case. Frankly, the moral peacocking is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking that someone found not guilty should be continued to be harassed and treated like that. Hiding under the pretense of caring about rape victims does not justify calling for the ruination of someone found not guilty, when all you're doing is making it more difficult for genuine cases to be heard.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Some post Ave, well said.

Sleeper12

Shefwedfan wrote:

The main person was the lady friend who walked in on them and was not drunk....some people like to forget her to continue their argument, she also talked to the lady involved in the house.....

I remember this lady. Didn't she swear that the one who claimed only had oral sex was having penitrative sex when she walked in?

No two accounts matched in the whole case.

What we do know is that she left the house in an emotional state, so much so that one of the lads went with her to make sure that she was OK. Same lad seemed to be talking in code on the phone back to the lads in the house. We also know that enough blood had soaked through her clothes that a taxi driver noticed even though it was night & dark. He saw so much blood that he checked the seating when she left.

The girl who walked in on them didn't witness anything that could have caused so much blood yet bleed she did. The girl that walked in for a split second wasn't a great witness imo. She mistook a man getting oral pleasure from the complainant for him shagging her. Not the most reliable witness.

No two stories matched. Jury had to aquit, & rightly so. Only a very foolish person would see this as the jury believing Jackson & Co. That's not to say that he was guilty. It just means that the jury could not convict because no ones story matched.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People should have the right to say literally anything they feel like saying in a private setting between family and/or friends, and should not be judged or penalised in any way for this in the event that it gets leaked into the public domain. End of story.

Some people are more private than others. You or I can say what we like in private and if it gets out, nothing will change. PJ is different and things did change when his private messages emerged.

The discussion about what is and isn’t rape came on leaps and bounds around the Belfast trial and the messages. Lots of people changed their opinion from “its simple, don’t rape anyone” to acknowledging that consent is actually a tricky subject and is worth discussing.

The IRFU were within their rights to protect themselves by not continuing to employ him because THEY were now associated with HIS private messages.

Anyway, he was acquitted and the public interest dust has settled as far as I’m concerned. So I wouldn’t protest him or London Irish

jr86

Deleted User wrote: »

Did anyone read the article? He won't play. Why would they bother risk the controversy. When Jackson played for Perpignon, they had an away game in Connacht. Jackson started every game up to till then but was left out of the entire squad for that match. They aren't stupid.

Heh, don't think its gonna stop these saddos

remember plenty were campaigning to get McIlroy and Harrison sacked by the IRFU. They don't have the first iota about rugby

I expect a few to even fly over to protest at LI's first league game. many of these are unhinged nutjobs with absolutely zero going on in their lives

Sleeper12

I have been on my phone until now & didn't realize that their was a pole. You need to change the wording. They were found "Not Guilty" by the court. A court can't find anyone innocent & it didn't find these innocent.

Uncharted

Paddy Jackson is a free man.
He committed no crime and was found not guilty in a court of law.

Nothing to see here. Move along SJW's.

I hope Paddy Jackson has a long and successful rugby career. Well deserved.



NB .... Admittedly , his behaviour was pretty sh1tty,but ultimately not illegal.

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

What annoys me the most is the fact that people who refuse to admit that Paddy Jackson was found not guilty, are the very people who are ruining the chances for actual rape cases. Not guilty is not guilty. It took the people who actually knew the facts a very short time to decide on this.

Rape trials are difficult enough as it is. One of the biggest reasons for this is because one of the party is lying, and regardless of who, the innocent people will have their life destroyed. And so the details are gone over with a fine tooth comb. For a rape victim, that means reliving their trauma over and over in various different ways, to potentially not be believed anyway. That's why there are so few reported cases. For an innocent accused, it means standing there whilst someone makes up some of the most disgusting lies about you. You have to sit there and take it with decorum, knowing that they've probably already ruined your life. All a person has to do (let's face it, mostly women since male rape isn't as recognised) is to accuse someone of rape and they know that there's hardly ever any going back from it. These people need to be jailed themselves, but they can't based on a small chance they might still be telling the truth. And so rape victims have to give every little detail, over and over, and relive the trauma again and again. Accused victims have their reputation destroyed, even if they weren't even in the area at the time and have to live their life with the consequences of being a rapist despite being entirely innocent of the crime.

What's needed most to help victims is clarity on cases. The most clarity on cases, the less need for a grilling and the less likely chance of false accusations. I can't see how anyone with actual experience in the process could continue to try and slander Jackson, instead of being delighted that it ended up a relatively clear cut case. Frankly, the moral peacocking is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourselves for thinking that someone found not guilty should be continued to be harassed and treated like that. Hiding under the pretense of caring about rape victims does not justify calling for the ruination of someone found not guilty, when all you're doing is making it more difficult for genuine cases to be heard.

I'm surprised people still don't have a handle on this by now. This scenario where one party is lying in nonsense. The prosecutors need to prove that the alleged rapist knowingly and willingly committed the act. This is called Mens Rea, or guilty mind. It's incredibly difficult to prove if the defendant is claiming to be innocent and there are no witnesses.

The most likely outcome is she believed she was raped and the defendants believe they did not commit rape. That's consistent with all of their accounts. This is entirely possible after copious amounts of drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties. Nobody is lying in that scenario.

I'm firmly in the #ibelieveher camp but I also believe Jackson didn't think he did anything wrong. In the eyes of the law, that's a not guilty verdict. These protesters need to understand that and take it up with our criminal justice system because justice was served by the letter of the law.

Sleeper12

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have been on my phone until now & didn't realize that their was a pole. You need to change the wording. They were found "Not Guilty" by the court. A court can't find anyone innocent & it didn't find these innocent.

By that logic, you're also not innocent of rape.

But yeah the poll should say not guilty. Which is the same in the eyes of the law given the presumption of innocence.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised people still don't have a handle on this by now. This scenario where one party is lying in nonsense. The prosecutors need to prove that the alleged rapist knowingly and willingly committed the act. This is called Mens Rea, or guilty mind. It's incredibly difficult to prove if the defendant is claiming to be innocent and there are no witnesses.

The most likely outcome is she believed she was raped and the defendants believe they did not commit rape. That's consistent with all of their accounts. This is entirely possible after copious amounts of drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties. Nobody is lying in that scenario.

I'm firmly in the #ibelieveher camp but I also believe Jackson didn't think he did anything wrong. In the eyes of the law, that's a not guilty verdict. These protesters need to understand that and take it up with our criminal justice system because justice was served by the letter of the law.

Best post of the thread. Everyones action after the trail point towards what is in bold. The jury were VERY sympathetic towards the claimant. Even the lads apologized to her for any misunderstanding & wished her well in life.



Well said

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote:

I'm surprised people still don't have a handle on this by now. This scenario where one party is lying in nonsense. The prosecutors need to prove that the alleged rapist knowingly and willingly committed the act. This is called Mens Rea, or guilty mind. It's incredibly difficult to prove if the defendant is claiming to be innocent and there are no witnesses.

I think you've missed the point of my post. I was referring to why the man hunt after a person is found not guilty is so detrimental to rape cases as a whole. You could insert the scenario above into it and it's still relevant.

Sleeper12

Deleted User wrote: »

By that logic, you're also not innocent of rape.

But yeah the poll should say not guilty. Which is the same in the eyes of the law given the presumption of innocence.

I have yet to be accoused of rape. If I ever am I can't be found innocent of it in a court of law though. You don't understand the law. There was no proof that proved they didn't do it. The verdict isn't saying they were found innocent. It can't say that because the verdict isn't based on 100 percent certainty. it's based on reasonably doubt.


Over 200 have voted so fart that he was found innocent. I wonder how many of the 200 will say the same thing about Micheal Jackson who was also acquitted (not found innocent). The very same people arguing here that the verdict means innocent will argue the opposite for Michael Jackson.


There is an awful lot of history going on here. I believe the lads should be left alone. I wouldn't have started this thread either because it does them more harm then good. Starting threads like this is as bad as the protestors. Dragging up to past doesn't help the lads.

BookNerd

https://galwaydaily.com/news/nine-out-of-ten-recorded-rapes-in-ireland-end-nothing/

This is why people protest.

Ave Sodalis

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I think you've missed the point of my post. I was referring to why the man hunt after a person is found not guilty is so detrimental to rape cases as a whole. You could insert the scenario above into it and it's still relevant.

Well you outline a scenario where one party must be lying. Most people are seemingly unaware of what the prosecuters were trying to prove.

source

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I have been on my phone until now & didn't realize that their was a pole. You need to change the wording. They were found "Not Guilty" by the court. A court can't find anyone innocent & it didn't find these innocent.

Our society and legal system, as well as those of other common law countries recognise the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, as he was found not guilty of the alleged offence, the court found that he remained innocent of the charges. This may sound like splitting hairs but that is how the justice system works.

Sleeper12

source wrote:

Therefore, as he was found not guilty of the alleged offence, the court found that he remained innocent of the charges. This may sound like splitting hairs but that is how the justice system works.

He has the assumption of innocent. He was not found innocent. This isn't a slur on him. I'm just pointing out that the wording of the pole is wrong. No one has ever been found innocent by an Irish Court of law. They are found guilty or not guilty

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

These threads are always a bit sickening. A lot of low-IQ virgins bred on Stefan Molyneux videos with no grasp of how the law works pontificating with their dull minds on how hard done by the accused were in this case.

She left there in a very emotional and upset state. The lads apologized afterwards. Everyone had different stories. If you think this is a clear cut case of a woman lying about being raped for money or fame, or any other reason, you are a moron. At the same same, the case should never have been brought forward by the DPP. No Jury was going to convict, and rightly so.

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm surprised people still don't have a handle on this by now. This scenario where one party is lying in nonsense. The prosecutors need to prove that the alleged rapist knowingly and willingly committed the act. This is called Mens Rea, or guilty mind. It's incredibly difficult to prove if the defendant is claiming to be innocent and there are no witnesses.

The most likely outcome is she believed she was raped and the defendants believe they did not commit rape. That's consistent with all of their accounts. This is entirely possible after copious amounts of drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties. Nobody is lying in that scenario.

I'm firmly in the #ibelieveher camp but I also believe Jackson didn't think he did anything wrong. In the eyes of the law, that's a not guilty verdict. These protesters need to understand that and take it up with our criminal justice system because justice was served by the letter of the law.

I agree with this post but just one correction:

The UK Criminal Justice system - not the Irish one.

Ave Sodalis

Deleted User wrote:

Well you outline a scenario where one party must be lying. Most people are seemingly unaware of what the prosecuters were trying to prove.

Which is, again, completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Raconteuse

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't know why these people insist on harrassing an innocent man. They changed their tune to pretend how most men in group chats with the lads talk is 'abnormal' , should be ashamed of themselves.

No most lads don't have such a vile attitude towards women. Having mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces... If a woman made that generalisation about men in a context that's not so convenient, she would be considered misandrist.

As he was found guilty, that should be that; but his and the others' attitude towards the girl was despicable. And of course some lads here high fiving him. A handful of unreal woman haters here. And yes she was an eejit to get wasted and go off for group sex but the lads were still vile, and she obviously felt traumatised. Anyone can see it was difficult for her in court - it wasn't just to spite them, she would have hardly wanted to go through that humiliation.

Eric Cartman

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

These threads are always a bit sickening. A lot of low-IQ virgins bred on Stefan Molyneux videos with no grasp of how the law works pontificating with their dull minds on how hard done by the accused were in this case.

She left there in a very emotional and upset state. The lads apologized afterwards. Everyone's story was different. If you think this is a clear cut case of a woman lying about being raped for money or fame, or any other reason, you are a moron. At the same same, the case should never have been brought forward by the DPP. No Jury was going to convict, and rightly so.

Lol at the first paragraph, why not a few more buzzwords ‘incel’ etc...

I dont think anyone thinks she did it for money and fame , a drunk and possibly on cocaine young woman gets caught by another woman engaged in a sex act that would be considered shameful by many women , the feelings of shame and regret heightened by the drink/ drugs would leave her rather upset, and theres many that would have such feelings of shame and regret that they would go to court to not be thought of as ‘the girl that likes threesomes with 2 lads she just met”

Id full on believe that she left there going “i cant believe i agreed to that, what woll people say, but wait, maybe i didnt make that big a mistake”

sydthebeat

BookNerd wrote: »

https://galwaydaily.com/news/nine-out-of-ten-recorded-rapes-in-ireland-end-nothing/

This is why people protest.

They would protest this case because it DID go to court and had a resolution???

And in doing so are protesting for cases which do not go to court???

That's frankly idiotic.

I just hope whoever is thinking of protesting looks at the poll result here as an indication that public opinion is not in agreement with these actions, and their energy would be better placed elsewhere

alastair

BDI wrote: »

Yep. Unless we do away with innocent until proven guilty. Which would be mad.

Kind of like a fascist thing to do.

The presumption of innocence only exists within the courtroom, and only to the bar of reasonable doubt applied to the charge. No court makes any finding of innocence. People are free to make up their own minds as to his innocence or otherwise. Nothing fascist about it. And rape victims are demonstrably not served well by the courts, given that they are poorly equipped to deal with evidence of contradictory statements and no physical or forensic evidence.

Yurt2

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has the assumption of innocent. He was not found innocent. This isn't a slur on him. I'm just pointing out that the wording of the pole is wrong. No one has ever been found innocent by an Irish Court of law. They are found guilty or not guilty

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenent of any free and fair justice system and is recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutional framework of any democracy worth speaking of.

What you're trying to do is reverse-engineer a semblance of doubt about their status as innocent men by playing word games about how a court delivers their verdict. Evrey defendant walks into a courtroom with the status of innocent, and unless it's proven otherwise, they are entitled to walk out with that status intact. You don't have to like Jackson or Olding (I don't), but they went through the rigors of a trial in front of a jury of their peers - that's all that matters. We can't, and shouldn't re-litigate the trial - nobody has the right to do that.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenent of any free and fair justice system and is recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the constitutional framework of any democracy worth speaking of.

What you're trying to do is reverse-engineer a semblance of doubt about their status as innocent men by playing word games about how a court delivers their verdict. Evrey defendant walks into a courtroom with the status of innocent, and unless it's proven otherwise, they are entitled to walk out with that status intact. You don't have to like Jackson or Olding (I don't), but they went through the rigors of a trial in front of a jury of their peers - that's all that matters. We can't, and shouldn't re-litigate the trial - nobody has the right to do that.

There is no presumption of innocence outside a courtroom.

Shefwedfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has the assumption of innocent. He was not found innocent. This isn't a slur on him. I'm just pointing out that the wording of the pole is wrong. No one has ever been found innocent by an Irish Court of law. They are found guilty or not guilty

It is funny how many legal guru's suddenly appeared in Ireland during and after this case


Play around with words all you want, it doesn't change the out come of the case


It also doesn't change 100 of years of a legal system which is based on persumption of innocense.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm surprised people still don't have a handle on this by now. This scenario where one party is lying in nonsense. The prosecutors need to prove that the alleged rapist knowingly and willingly committed the act. This is called Mens Rea, or guilty mind. It's incredibly difficult to prove if the defendant is claiming to be innocent and there are no witnesses.

The most likely outcome is she believed she was raped and the defendants believe they did not commit rape. That's consistent with all of their accounts. This is entirely possible after copious amounts of drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties. Nobody is lying in that scenario.

I'm firmly in the #ibelieveher camp but I also believe Jackson didn't think he did anything wrong. In the eyes of the law, that's a not guilty verdict. These protesters need to understand that and take it up with our criminal justice system because justice was served by the letter of the law.

It shows the need for discussion about what consent is and what rape is. I imagine Jackson never meant to rape anyone and the court found him not guilty of rape. But I’d bet he never meant to hurt anyone either and it’s clear that the woman was hurt. I’d bet Jackson wishes he knew more about consent beforehand. It would have saved him a whole lot of agro, money, career, and he wouldn’t have hurt anyone else or diminished himself.

I’d agree with all of the post above except the #ibelieveher part. I don’t believe anyone in these instances just because they say something. I wasn’t there so I don’t know enough to believe anything.

Sleeper12

Yurt! wrote:

What you're trying to do is reverse-engineer a semblance of doubt about their status as innocent men by playing word games about how a court delivers their verdict. Evrey defendant walks into a courtroom with the status of innocent, and unless it's proven otherwise, they are entitled to walk out with that status intact. You don't have to like Jackson or Olding (I don't), but they went through the rigors of a trial in front of a jury of their peers - that's all that matters. We can't, and shouldn't re-litigate the trial - nobody has the right to do that.

I'm not trying to do anything. I totally respect the jury's verdict of not guilty. I'm just pointing out that it's impossible for anyone to be found innocent, including myself. They were not found innocent no more than she was found guilty or even of telling lies.

Once again no one can be found innocent. The wording of the poll is wrong. I am not saying that the men were guilty, just that it's impossible to be found innocent.