Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

There is no presumption of innocence outside a courtroom.

What is that supposed to mean?

Outside a courtroom you can't claim a person guilty of a crime of which they have not been found guilty of. That's slander.

BookNerd

sydthebeat wrote: »

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

They protest because there is a very real problem with rape cases and the majority of people who are raped never see justice.
As someone has already said, that woman felt that she had been raped. Those men do not believe they raped her.
She left their house bleeding and crying. It was not a positive experience for her and how any person can have sex with someone and leave them in that state.....I can't comprehend it.
These men are not "innocent". They treated her abysmally and spoke about her and other women in an awful way.
They are public figures and if they were actors on a soap or tv presenters they would have been sacked and rightly so (Al Porter for example)
And if another tv company hired Al Porter there would be protesters. Or if Kevin Spacey was in a new movie there would be protests. If Harvey Weinstein made a new film there would be protests. None of these people have been convicted of anything......but that doesn't meant that people shouldn't be angry about their actions and feel there should be repercussions.
It's the same with Paddy Jackson. He's a public figure who did something wrong by speaking about women in such a derogatory way and leaving a woman he had sex with in such a state.
People have the right to protest against his public career continuing.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

What is that supposed to mean?

Outside a courtroom you can't claim a person guilty of a crime of which they have not been found guilty of. That's slander.

You can of course, plenty of people have been very clear that they believe the woman was raped. Jackson tried to intimidate some of those people with litigation, but to no avail. Nobody can require a presumption of innocence outside a courtroom, and nobody has any such entitlement outside a courtroom.

Sleeper12

Shefwedfan wrote:

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

Shefwedfan wrote:

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

Shefwedfan wrote:

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

Another poster not getting the message. I'm not suggesting that they are guilty. I am stating a FACT that no one can be found innocent. It is correct to say that they are innocent but not correct to say that they were found innocent.

To be found innocent you'd have to prove 100 percent that it wasn't you. No court works that way. Reasonable doubt is all that you have to prove & I'm glad it's done that way. I'd hate to have to prove 100 percent that I didn't do something.

Again I am not saying that they are guilty. Now get off that high horse before you fall & hurt yourself

BarryD2

Let she who is without sin cast the first stone. I can't get my head around people who want to carry on vindictively against these men and Jackson in particular seems to be singled out.

The same people who then expect/ demand even that men support them in their varied campaigns and referendums. No time at all for them.

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

There is no presumption of innocence outside a courtroom.

You're getting into legal esoteric territory here, but in most common and civil law jurisdictions there are strong protections for one's good name (see our constitution) and laws against defamation (be it libel or slander). In the balance of rights game that happens in the Western-legal tradition, you're more wrong than right than wrong on that point.

Go around saying your neighbour is guilty of an infamous murderer in word and in print and see how long it takes before you receive a solicitors letter.

What you have typed above is the philosophical refuge of small-town gossips and angry Twitter artists on a rampage.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

You're getting into legal esoteric territory here, but in most common and civil law jurisdictions there are strong protections for one's good name (see our constitution) and laws against defamation (be it libel or slander). In the balance of rights game that happens in the Western-legal tradition, you're more wrong than right than wrong on that point.

Go around saying your neighbour is guilty of an infamous murderer in word and in print and see how long it takes before you receive a solicitors letter.

What you have typed above is the philosophical refuge of small-town gossips and angry Twitter artists on a rampage.

It also happens to be true. There’s precisely zero obligation on anyone to believe Jackson is innocent. None whatsoever.

ELM327

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

You are not "found innocent" because you are presumed to be already innocent, unless convicted. Therefore a "not guilty" verdict is a finding that the prior assumption, of innocence, is to be maintained.


You can play around with semantics if you wish but, like it or not, they were found innocent.

Shefwedfan

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Another poster not getting the message. I'm not suggesting that they are guilty. I am stating a FACT that no one can be found innocent. It is correct to say that they are innocent but not correct to say that they were found innocent.

To be found innocent you'd have to prove 100 percent that it wasn't you. No court works that way. Reasonable doubt is all that you have to prove & I'm glad it's done that way. I'd hate to have to prove 100 percent that I didn't do something.

Again I am not saying that they are guilty. Now get off that high horse before you fall & hurt yourself

Never heard this "not guilty" till it suited everyone after this case.....

alastair

ELM327 wrote: »

You are not "found innocent" because you are presumed to be already innocent, unless convicted. Therefore a "not guilty" verdict is a finding that the prior assumption, of innocence, is to be maintained.


You can play around with semantics if you wish but, like it or not, they were found innocent.

The presumption of innocence begins and ends in the courtroom, and only in relation to to the weight of evidence required to convict. There is no maintaining a presumption of innocence beyond the verdict. Nobody is found innocent.

Raconteuse

BarryD2 wrote: »

Let she who is without sin cast the first stone.

You could say that about anything. We all judge, all the time.

I can't get my head around people who want to carry on vindictively against these men and Jackson in particular seems to be singled out.

The same people who then expect/ demand even that men support them in their varied campaigns and referendums.

Yeah I'm not into that either but despise the downplaying of their vile attitudes too, and even backslapping of them.

ELM327

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Never heard this "not guilty" till it suited everyone after this case.....

People got their pink and blue hair in a twist, when they couldnt comprehend the court process in between screeches. It's not even that difficult, not only were the accused found not guilty, the case should never have been brought.


Arguably the case being brought, damaged the struggle of actual rape victims.

ELM327

alastair wrote: »

The presumption of innocence begins and ends in the courtroom, and only in relation to to the weight of evidence required to convict. There is no maintaining a presumption of innocence beyond the verdict. Nobody is found innocent.

So, back to the vigilantes and burning sticks from the dark ages then?

El_Duderino 09

Shefwedfan wrote: »

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.

Ah now. It’s not playing around with words. If you don’t see the difference between being found not guilty and found innocent, then that your issue. It’s not word play, it’s a major difference. For a start, courts don’t even attempt to rule on innocence or not, they rule on guilt or not.

He was found not guilty. Which means he’s square with the law and that’s good enough for me in this case. But I acknowledge that that law is a great tool but it doesn’t always line up with reality. Maybe you feel that law is near perfect, but I think you’d be in the minority.

ELM327

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah now. It’s not playing around with words. If you don’t see the difference between being found not guilty and found innocent, then that your issue. It’s not word play, it’s a major difference. For a start, courts don’t even attempt to rule on innocence or not, they rule on guilt or not.

He was found not guilty. Which means he’s square with the law and that’s good enough for me in this case. But I acknowledge that that law is a great tool but it doesn’t always line up with reality. Maybe you feel that law is near perfect, but I think you’d be in the minority.

1 - there is no finding of "innocent" in law, as you do not need to be found innocent because your default state is innocent.


2 - we've done this already.


QED

ELM327 wrote: »

You are not "found innocent" because you are presumed to be already innocent, unless convicted. Therefore a "not guilty" verdict is a finding that the prior assumption, of innocence, is to be maintained.


You can play around with semantics if you wish but, like it or not, they were found innocent.

alastair

ELM327 wrote: »

So, back to the vigilantes and burning sticks from the dark ages then?

You see anyone advocating for either? But protesting a man you believe to be far from innocent is the entitlement of people. An actual right, unlike the presumption of innocence outside a courtroom.

If OJ Simpson turned up to play a testimonial, you’d expect some protesters. Same thing.

BookNerd

Just as a matter of interest, do the people who are saying he is "innocent" think that the woman was lying?

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

It also happens to be true. There’s precisely zero obligation on anyone to believe Jackson is innocent. None whatsoever.

With respect, that's not the point you were wheeling. You stated that the presumption of innocence does not exist outside a courtroom; apart from the fact it runs like a river right through our culture and the constitutional and legal frameworks in just about every country besides North Korea, there are in fact strong civil penalties for defamation. Correct as you may be that you are under no obligation to believe anyone to be innocent if you move to libel or slander an individual, you'll find out quick and fast that it does exist outside the courtroom.

Again, you're adopting an extremely narrow and esoteric stance here. You're more wrong than you are right.

Sleeper12

ELM327 wrote:

You are not "found innocent" because you are presumed to be already innocent, unless convicted. Therefore a "not guilty" verdict is a finding that the prior assumption, of innocence, is to be maintained.

ELM327 wrote:

You can play around with semantics if you wish but, like it or not, they were found innocent.

I'm not playing with any words. I am 100 percent correct when I say no one can be found innocent. Even you agree with that. Yet with your tunnel vision you see me as playing semantics for stating that correct term "not guilty" but OP who used a verdict that doesn't exist isn't playing with semantics.

The mind truly Boggles

ELM327

BookNerd wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, do the people who are saying he is "innocent" think that the woman was lying?

Yes - I do

alastair wrote: »

You see anyone advocating for either? But protesting a man you believe to be far from innocent is the entitlement of people. An actual right, unlike the presumption of innocence outside a courtroom.

If OJ Simpson turned up to play a testimonial, you’d expect some protesters. Same thing.

You're advocating for the disregard of common law.

Law and order is what separates us from barbarians.


Protesting against an innocent man is harassment and should be illegal.

ELM327

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm not playing with any words. I am 100 percent correct when I say no one can be found innocent. Even you agree with that. Yet with your tunnel vision you see me as playing semantics for stating that correct term "not guilty" but OP who used a verdict that doesn't exist isn't playing with semantics.

The mind truly Boggles

The mind indeed boggles, how could they be found to be in a state that they are already in?

Yurt2

ELM327 wrote: »

The mind indeed boggles, how could they be found to be in a state that they are already in?

Precisely

Ave Sodalis

BookNerd wrote:

Just as a matter of interest, do the people who are saying he is "innocent" think that the woman was lying?

How about we advocate the idea that absolutely none of us know the full details of what, overall, was a very messy case, and the only people who got all the details in order to determine exactly what was needed to make a judgement were the people involved in making a judgement. Instead of asking loaded questions designed solely to provoke an argument where neither side know for sure what was going on.

Shefwedfan

BookNerd wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, do the people who are saying he is "innocent" think that the woman was lying?

Yes


To what extend nobody knows because she walked off to live the rest of her life while the men and ladies on the other side had their faces and lives splashed all over the press


Even the other lady witness, people have no issues mentioning her name on this thread and also calling her evidence into question.....



Is it right for her to be splashed all over the press? or have randomers say she lied?

BookNerd

BookNerd wrote: »

They protest because there is a very real problem with rape cases and the majority of people who are raped never see justice.
As someone has already said, that woman felt that she had been raped. Those men do not believe they raped her.
She left their house bleeding and crying. It was not a positive experience for her and how any person can have sex with someone and leave them in that state.....I can't comprehend it.
These men are not "innocent". They treated her abysmally and spoke about her and other women in an awful way.
They are public figures and if they were actors on a soap or tv presenters they would have been sacked and rightly so (Al Porter for example)
And if another tv company hired Al Porter there would be protesters. Or if Kevin Spacey was in a new movie there would be protests. If Harvey Weinstein made a new film there would be protests. None of these people have been convicted of anything......but that doesn't meant that people shouldn't be angry about their actions and feel there should be repercussions.
It's the same with Paddy Jackson. He's a public figure who did something wrong by speaking about women in such a derogatory way and leaving a woman he had sex with in such a state.
People have the right to protest against his public career continuing.

What exactly did paddy Jackson say that was derogatory

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

With respect, that's not the point you were wheeling. You stated that the presumption of innocence does not exist outside a courtroom; apart from the fact it runs like a river right through our culture and the constitutional and legal frameworks in just about every country besides North Korea, there are in fact strong civil penalties for defamation. Correct as you may be that you are under no obligation to believe anyone to be innocent if you move to libel or slander an individual, you'll find out quick and fast that it does exist outside the courtroom.

Again, you're adopting an extremely narrow and esoteric stance here. You're more wrong than you are right.

Defamation is also a legal issue - played out in a courtroom. It doesn’t imply that there is any ‘river’ of presumed innocence running through our culture. You could argue that the law is proof that the exact opposite is the case. I don’t believe Jackson is innocent. I’m entitled to hold that belief, and I’m also entitled to articulate that belief, even if there’s also an entitlement on Jackson’s part to defend himself from my belief in court.

alastair

ELM327 wrote: »

You're advocating for the disregard of common law.

Law and order is what separates us from barbarians.


Protesting against an innocent man is harassment and should be illegal.

Neither Jackson nor OJ are innocent. No law requires that I presume either are.

Portsalon

Sleeper12 wrote: »

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.

Exactly. If I had been on that I jury then I too would have acquitted, given the evidence.

But does that mean that I believe that all of the sex that took place that night was consensual? No I don't.

Would I protest outside Musgrave or Thomond Park? Not in a million years.

Sleeper12

Shefwedfan wrote:

Never heard this "not guilty" till it suited everyone after this case.....

This is how its done worldwide. No one is ever found innocent. Birmingham six, Gilford For etc. All innocent men but not a one has an innocent verdict. It's guilty or not guilty. In the case of the above the guilty verdict was overturned & their assumption of innocence returned but it was never proven in a court of law that they were innocent.

It's not a new thing just because you never heard of it. Let me ask you this, how many cases have you read in the papers before this case that says someone was found innocent? The answer is never. It's impossible to be found innocent in a court of law. The jury we asked if they had reasonable doubt. At no stage is a jury asked if they are 100 percent certain

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

Defamation is also a legal issue - played out in a courtroom. It doesn’t imply that there is any ‘river’ of presumed innocence running through our culture. You could argue that the law is proof that the exact opposite is the case. I don’t believe Jackson is innocent. I’m entitled to hold that belief, and I’m also entitled to articulate that belief, even if there’s also an entitlement on Jackson’s part to defend himself from my belief in court.

You're in knots here. You don't enter 'the courtroom' through a wormhole via the Starship Enterprise. The legal framework is intimately related to 'the real world,' our culture and the social contract that binds us all together and separates us from simians. The presumption of innocence is not discreet from culture and society. This is reflected in laws against libel and slander.


You have no more 'the right' to defame anyone than you have the right to trespass or commit an act of invasion of one's privacy.