nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Strazdas

irishrebe wrote: »

There are dozens upon dozens of people saying that women should not expect to go to a house party or back to someone's house after a night of drinking without things becoming sexual.

Having followed the trial, it seems Dara Florence and one of the other girls engaged in no sexual activity at all at the party - there was a suggestion that one other girl might have gone to a room with McIlroy.

super_furry

Feminazis, snowflakes, virtue-signalling, feminism is a cancer, etc - all the language of people who spend too much time on weird red-pill, PUA and women hating sites and youtube channels. Usually the same kind of people who are frothing at the mouth about immigrants, muslims and the unemployed.

super_furry

C__MC wrote: »

Social media at its best lately. There is a petation going about for the 4 lads never to play rugby for Ireland again. You couldn’t make it up.

In fairness, I don't think that's going to be an issue for two of them at least.

Amalgam

super_furry wrote: »

Feminazis, snowflakes, virtue-signalling, feminism is a cancer, etc - all the language of people who spend too much time on weird red-pill, PUA and women hating sites and youtube channels. Usually the same kind of people who are frothing at the mouth about immigrants, muslims and the unemployed.

Generalise much?

pjohnson

C__MC wrote: »

Social media at its best lately. There is a petation going about for the 4 lads never to play rugby for Ireland again. You couldn’t make it up.

Damn. McIlroy looked like the next BOD

Mokuba

C__MC wrote: »

Social media at its best lately. There is a petation going about for the 4 lads never to play rugby for Ireland again. You couldn’t make it up.

These absolute morons want the IRFU to take action against Harrison and McIlroy

For what? They have no relationship with the IRFU.

It shows how much knowledge they have of the case. Cretins.

super_furry

Amalgam wrote: »

Generalise much?

About people who use that kind of language? Absolutely.

VinLieger

Just saw the news about O Riordan getting sued, hilarious stuff! Im delighted and hope he gets taken to the wall with jackson refusing any settlement

C__MC

super_furry wrote: »

In fairness, I don't think that's going to be an issue for two of them at least.

Obviously, just a bandwagon petition in support of the non guilty verdict

tritium

irishrebe wrote: »

There are dozens upon dozens of people saying that women should not expect to go to a house party or back to someone's house after a night of drinking without things becoming sexual.

There are dozens upon dozens of people applying a strange double standard to responsibility with respect to drink

There are dozens upon dozens of people refusing to accept a decision that a jury armed with all available facts came too

There are dozens upon dozens of people embarrassing themselves marching against a court decision they don’t like in a different country.

There are dozens upon dozens of people jumping at the chance to ruin the futures of four young men who have already been through hell and who have been cleared of the charges

Strazdas

torqtorq wrote: »

Murray and Zebo have had no issue with sponsors.

They make a video recording of themselves having a threesome - which finds its way onto the internet - but yet they are paragons of virtue with PR teams drip feeding softly softly press articles.

These men have been found not guilty and should be treated as such.

True, though if such a video was to appear now in the wake of the trial, I'd imagine there would be a very different atmosphere and they'd be under scrutiny and taking a lot of flak.

GreeBo

super_furry wrote: »

Feminazis, snowflakes, virtue-signalling, feminism is a cancer, etc - all the language of people who spend too much time on weird red-pill, PUA and women hating sites and youtube channels. Usually the same kind of people who are frothing at the mouth about immigrants, muslims and the unemployed.

As opposed to the kind of people who froth at the mouth about White Male Privilege?

Keyzer

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Lunacy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AO9C87mmYk

These are the same type of people who show up to anti-trump rallies in the states . These men were tried in a court of law in a different country with a different judicial system to our own and were found not guilty. Yet this nonsense goes on. Its like a bunch of toddlers having a tantrum because they didn't get what they want.

They have no idea of the intricacy of a legal case like this, what evidence was presented to the jury etc. They base their opinions on the one sided tripe spouted by "social influencers" online as opposed to truly immersing themselves in the facts of the case.

Social media has done this - at its very heart, social media is destroying rational thinking and turning people into mobs baying for something someone else told them they should be baying for.

Society is doomed.

jimmynokia

jr86 wrote: »

Haha great news re Aodhan O'Riordan. Lucking for cheap publicity and it has backfired spectacularly

Great opportunity here to hold people account for their daft ill-informed Tweets! Plenty more to come I imagine, given PJ's legal team are actively monitoring Social Media activity

He wont be the last either many journos have started a campaign all female no doubt also the same ones pushing their views on social media an libel. My two cents on this thing is from now on NO MEDIA should be allowed in court and nobody should be named until verdict has been decided and no media or jpurnalists have their veiws aired on social media they should be blacklisted from such events again,trial by media and socialmedia is a major issue.

super_furry

GreeBo wrote: »

As opposed to the kind of people who froth at the mouth about White Male Privilege?

Yep. Irish people whinging about white privilege in a country where 98.6% of people are white is equally as daft.

AudreyHepburn

Amalgam wrote: »

This has been posted I guess.

Jackson to sue Labour senator over alleged defamatory tweet

www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0330/951154-belfast-rape-trial/

---

Joy.

He’s absolutely right .....it’s worrying that so many people are either missing or willfully ignoring the fact that he and his friends have been found not guilty.

Is it that hard to accept that when a man is found not guilty it might be because he actually is not guilty?

hill16bhoy

super_furry wrote: »

Jackson would be well advised to keep his head down and stay quiet. Threatening politicians with spurious court cases would do little other than to keep the words Paddy Jackson, court and rape in the headlines.

Jackson has done himself no favours at all over the last two days.

Olding on the other hand showed at least some smarts with his statement.

Jackson should be aware that if he goes ahead with his action against O'Riordain he'll be:

i) Securing O'Riordain's re-election to the Dail.
ii) On, at best, very shaky legal ground for an action.
iii) Only bringing more trouble upon himself.

He's being extremely badly advised here.

Laois_Man

When I heard the news just now about O'Riordan getting sued, I came on here fully expecting it to have put the ****s up boards and for this thread to have been locked if not removed entirely.

It won't last the day surely! :P

Mokuba

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Jackson has done himself no favours at all over the last two days.

Olding on the other hand showed at least some smarts with his statement.

Jackson should should be aware that if he goes ahead with his action against O'Riordain he'll be:

i) Securing O'Riordain's re-election to the Dail.
ii) On, at best, very shaky legal ground for an action.
iii) Only bringing more trouble upon himself.

He's being extremely badly advised here.

Wrong on all 3 counts. Spectacularly so.

dxhound2005

Anything published in a newspaper or broadcast on radio or TV is subject to the law. There have been many court cases. The exact same law applies to anything published on the internet. In time lawyers will go after people on the likes of Twitter and that will bring them into line.

bigpink

VinLieger wrote: »

Just saw the news about O Riordan getting sued, hilarious stuff! Im delighted and hope he gets taken to the wall with jackson refusing any settlement

Why he getting sued

paw patrol

super_furry wrote: »

Feminazis, snowflakes, virtue-signalling, feminism is a cancer, etc - all the language of people who spend too much time on weird red-pill, PUA and women hating sites and youtube channels. Usually the same kind of people who are frothing at the mouth about immigrants, muslims and the unemployed.

you are talking through your hoop....

dark crystal

BattleCorp wrote: »

It doesn't mean that they did it and got away with it either like many on here seem to be suggesting.

If I was accused of rape and found not guilty, I'd be very p1ssed off if people were going online and saying that I did it even when I was found not guilty.

Nobody knows what happened for sure except the parties involved. The state's case wasn't proven, therefore the jury felt they could not convict based on the evidence presented.

Rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove. Jackson and Olding were found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and they therefore are free men and innocent in the eyes of the law. This does not mean the other party in the case was lying. To affirmatively state she was lying, she would need to be convicted of deliberately and maliciously giving false evidence. It could well be that she felt she was raped, that she had not fully consented - that doesn't make her a liar.

OJ Simpson was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but was later sued in Civil court and lost where the preponderance of evidence is much lower. This is why I feel the prosecution services need to be sure they have a very strong case before they bring these cases - all parties in this case have been put through hell and the fallout has been immense for every one of them.

iamwhoiam

C__MC wrote: »

Social media at its best lately. There is a petation going about for the 4 lads never to play rugby for Ireland again. You couldn’t make it up.

Personally I would prefer not to have men who speaks about women like they did on their whatsapp messages to be seen as a good example . I wouldn't like to think that young boys or girls would see them as heroes to look up to . Think what you like of that kind of behaviour and language about a young woman but I am entitled to my opinion too . Thankfully no men in my life would dream of demeaning women like that .

Laois_Man

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Jackson has done himself no favours at all over the last two days.

Olding on the other hand showed at least some smarts with his statement.

Jackson should be aware that if he goes ahead with his action against O'Riordain he'll be:

i) Securing O'Riordain's re-election to the Dail.
ii) On, at best, very shaky legal ground for an action.
iii) Only bringing more trouble upon himself.

He's being extremely badly advised here.

I disagree completely

Because
i) O'Riordain's is not elected to the Dail for him to be "re-elected" to it
ii) Saying someone got off because they are well connected and not because they are innocent is by no means shaky ground.
iii) May also be bring lots of coin onto himself.....which he may very well need now!

RuMan

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Jackson has done himself no favours at all over the last two days.

Olding on the other hand showed at least some smarts with his statement.

Jackson should should be aware that if he goes ahead with his action against O'Riordain he'll be:

i) Securing O'Riordain's re-election to the Dail.
ii) On, at best, very shaky legal ground for an action.
iii) Only bringing more trouble upon himself.

He's being extremely badly advised here.

Jacko was found not guilty. Failed and uneltected politician Amadan needs to realise that.

Amadan will apologise he's ur typical whiny left politician all bluster but folds when it is put up to him.

Faugheen

jimmynokia wrote: »

jr86 wrote: »

Haha great news re Aodhan O'Riordan. Lucking for cheap publicity and it has backfired spectacularly

Great opportunity here to hold people account for their daft ill-informed Tweets! Plenty more to come I imagine, given PJ's legal team are actively monitoring Social Media activity

He wont be the last either many journos have started a campaign all female no doubt also the same ones pushing their views on social media an libel. My two cents on this thing is from now on NO MEDIA should be allowed in court and nobody should be named until verdict has been decided and no media or jpurnalists have their veiws aired on social media they should be blacklisted from such events again,trial by media and socialmedia is a major issue.

If you don't allow the media or the public in court then how can it be determined that the defendant gets a fair trial?

Absolute nonsense statement to make. You can put restrictions on what the media can report (naming complainants and defendants, for example) but to say court sittings should be behind closed doors completely is absolutely preposterous.

sheroman01

bigpink wrote: »

Why he getting sued

The answer to this is literally in the link just a few posts up...

Phoebas

What was defamatory in Ó Ríordáin's tweet?
I'm not seeing it myself.

Strazdas

Keyzer wrote: »

These are the same type of people who show up to anti-trump rallies in the states . These men were tried in a court of law in a different country with a different judicial system to our own and were found not guilty. Yet this nonsense goes on. Its like a bunch of toddlers having a tantrum because they didn't get what they want.

They have no idea of the intricacy of a legal case like this, what evidence was presented to the jury etc. They base their opinions on the one sided tripe spouted by "social influencers" online as opposed to truly immersing themselves in the facts of the case.

Social media has done this - at its very heart, social media is destroying rational thinking and turning people into mobs baying for something someone else told them they should be baying for.

Society is doomed.

In fairness though, you're assuming the protests were about the trial result and nothing else. But it was stated at the protest that one of the things they were concerned with was how female complainants are treated on the stand by defence lawyers and there were other aspects of the trial they were unhappy with.

We've seen plenty of people describe the woman as a "liar" for example,when there's not much evidence she didn't believe what she was saying (she left the house in tears and was crying in the taxi all the way home).