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

lalababa

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Things like Consent classes are very degrading to men. Imagine being stupid enough to go to one?.

It assumes men have predatory intent and need to be thought that its not ok to rape. Shows a terribly low opinion of men.

As you said If there are consent classes for men are their the same for women?.

If not why not?.

Plenty of very grabby women out there, espeically with few jars or lines of coke in them.

Look what happened to 8 ball jacket man.

jace_da_face

Deleted User wrote: »

I saw his tweet and if I'm not mistaken, he didn't name anyone but did refer to them "collectively"- wondering if (a) that is really defamation on the basis of not naming someone and (b) could all the relevant parties also issue a lawsuit?

If I said all Boards.ie Mods are X (derogatory term), besides a permaban, does than mean all or any Boards.ie mods could take a case against me?

(I'm asking because I don't know- not arguing with you). :-)

No they could not take a case against you. Name calling and expression of opinions are not grounds for defamation. Only a statement of fact which would lower a person's reputation, could be grounds for defamation, if it cannot be proven to be true. The burden of proof is on the accused.

Cyrus

All of those advocating consent classes for young men and speaking about the sense of entitlement these rugby players have regarding women ,

Where do they think that sense of entitlement comes from ? Girls who throw themselves at famous athletes one would imagine

So should there also be a don’t throw yourself at famous people class alongside the consent classes ?

RuMan

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Things like Consent classes are very degrading to men. Imagine being stupid enough to go to one?.

It assumes men have predatory intent and need to be thought that its not ok to rape. Shows a terribly low opinion of men.

As you said If there are consent classes for men are their the same for women?.

If not why not?.

Plenty of very grabby women out there, espeically with few jars or lines of coke in them.

Only men who would go will probably never get within a 100 miles of a woman.
Conversely no potential rapist would attend such a class. In truth they are not really about the people attending but an exercise in virtue signalling from those organising them.

There's good money in the victim olympics these days. For failed politicians like Amadan and Ivana Bacik they are essential.

lalababa

Do not go against the PC group think on social media or you WILL be punished. Boards moderators are pretty good at shutting down contrarian posters, and ops.

spookwoman

Cyrus wrote: »

All of those advocating consent classes for young men and speaking about the sense of entitlement these rugby players have regarding women ,

Where do they think that sense of entitlement comes from ? Girls who throw themselves at famous athletes one would imagine

So should there also be a don’t throw yourself at famous people class alongside the consent classes ?

just on the subject of throwing themselves at athletes, there is no law against it but there is a law if that athlete sexually assaults them.

TerrorFirmer

spookwoman wrote: »

just on the subject of throwing themselves at athletes, there is no law against it but there is a law if that athlete sexually assaults them.

There's also a law if they murder them.

What's the point you're making there exactly in relation to the question you were responding to....?

pjohnson

Consent classes are moronic

TheValeyard

pjohnson wrote: »

Consent classes are moronic

Yep. Surely it could be brought up in sexual health and awareness modules in Secondary school as part of the course, not as a seperate mandatory subject.

kylith

pjohnson wrote: »

Consent classes are moronic

And yet on this very forum recently we had people who did not understand that consenting to foreplay did not mean consenting to penetration.

The Talking Bread

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I'm not trying to take away from they way they spoke, just putting it in context.

The notion that they need to answer for how they spoke in private is absurd.

They have noone to answer to. It is their perogative if they feel it acceptable or normal to speak like that but they need to accept a lot of scrutiny for it. Private or not, it is still pathetic way to interact with people

Ulysses Gaze

Flipper22 wrote: »

Again, Jackson did NOT send any crass or nasty messages.

It was Mcilroy, and to a lesser extent Olding. The worst messages were from others in the group, not any of the four accused.

He is completely right to consider action against anyone that is defaming him. Even the threat seems to have already led to a mass deletion of defamatory and moronic tweets. O riordan tweet was disgraceful.

People really need to learn how to control their emotions before they tweet anything.

A raft of defamation lawsuits may get people to stop and think before they pour their invective online and expect to just walk away without any consequences.

Strazdas

suicide_circus wrote: »

So if they had been found guilty no one would be talking about the case anymore. But because the "WRONG" verdict was reached people have a meltdown and actually take to the streets despite having no information to prove them guilty?

Is this actually happening? Am I taking crazy pills?

Not necessarily. A guilty verdict might well have set off a completely different backlash and Twitter storm ie. many people claiming that four innocent men had been stitched up.

Outlaw Pete

suicide_circus wrote: »

So if they had been found guilty no one would be talking about the case anymore. But because the "WRONG" verdict was reached people have a meltdown and actually take to the streets despite having no information to prove them guilty?

Is this actually happening? Am I taking crazy pills?

Yup and tomorrow they're ramping it up..... march to Dept of Justice.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/979725517946580998

TerrorFirmer

kylith wrote: »

And yet on this very forum recently we had people who did not understand that consenting to foreplay did not mean consenting to penetration.

The opinion of one or two individuals hardly is indicative of the wider population.

On that basis alone we'd need classes for everything from 'it's not to ok to steal' to 'it's not OK to murder someone'.

Tigger

Strazdas wrote: »

Not necessarily. A guilty verdict might well have set off a completely different backlash and Twitter storm ie. many people claiming that four innocent men had been stitched up.

well havent they?
releasing their names before they've been found guilty is stupid
some people have said it allows others to come forwars nbut to them i say
1 can they not come forwards once a gfuilty verdict has been reached
2 what good was releasing harrison's name

Stheno

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yup and tomorrow they're ramping it up..... march to Dept of Justice.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/979725517946580998

Insanity

defrule

I don’t like the sound of “total overhaul of court system”...

Muahahaha

super_furry wrote: »

I'd doubt it. Very hard to imagine they'll be able to convince anyone that it wasn't in the public interest, which will no doubt be the BBC's defence, given the huge public interest in the trial and it's aftermath.

For me I think Jacksons civil action for breach of privacy Vs. the BBC is going to be a slam dunk case. The BBC reported his and Oldings names to the public domain before they had even been charged of a crime. Now that they have been found not guilty the BBC are on a hiding to nothing here. The public interest will not trump the BBC breaching his privacy. Funnily enough we have a very similar recent legal precedent on this, again involving the BBC. It was them who arranged a media scrum outside Cliff Richards house when was being raided in relation to a paedophilia allegation. As we know now Cliff Richard was never charged with any crime and the complainant was found to be making it up. Cliff Richard then sues South Yorkshire Police and wins what was called "a substantial sum" which has been reported as being circa £1m. His court case against the BBC for their involvement is due to be held later this year and I think he is going to be in for yet another circa £1m here too. Cliffs legal costs are currently running at £800,000 too and the BBC will likely be footing this bill as well. By the time Cliff is done and dusted the BBC are likely on the hook for £2m-£2.5m all in- to be paid for by British TV license payers. Taxpayers are rightly annoyed over the BBCs massive cock up.

Jacksons and Oldings lawyers will be keeping a very close eye on the outcome of Cliff Richard V. the BBC as they are remarkably similar cases. The award for Jackson & Olding wont be as high as the BBC did not organise a media scum outside a raid on their houses. However they did report their names before they were charged which is pretty serious. Also expect Jackson & Olding to sue the source of the leak when that info comes out, its fairly likely the PSNI are going to get dragged into legal action here too.

super_furry wrote: »

Maybe so and I'd imagine he's doing very well out of the whole thing financially, but I don't believe his case against O'Riordan would stand up in court at all.

I wouldnt be so sure on that super_furry. Not saying it is a slam dunk case in the way the BBC privacy case is or anything. But it could be argued by Jacksons lawyers that ORiordans tweet insinuated that Jackson is not innocent/got off because of connections. The #IBelieveHer at the end wont do him any favours either. While he did not tweet "Jackson is a liar" there is a bit of an inference from #IBelieveHer without actually saying "I dont believe him".

Granted it is not a cast iron case but dont also forget that Irelands defamation laws are some of the most plaintiff friendly in the world. You literally cannot say anything in this country without being very, very sure of your facts. ORiordains tweet was re-tweeted first hand 332 times and after that god knows how many times it was re-tweeted second and third hand. So there can be no doubt it spread like wildfire even though he deleted the tweet soon after- that wont matter because the damage was already done and irreversible.

A good strategy for Jackson right now would be to take the BBC and PSNI privacy case and get some wedge for that. From there cut a deal with KRW law for running a no foal no fee defamation case Vs. ORiordan and file it in the High Court. There is no need to bring ORiordan all the way because High Court defamation proceedings will scare him sh1tless. Once ORiordain realises his family home is on the line and Jackson side is racking up 100,000 plus on legal costs alone he will be begging him for a settlement well before it gets to court. This will all be done in private between the two sets of lawyers so no need for opening any cans of worms. Its definitely a game of brinkmanship but its a game I just couldnt see ORiordain having the bottle for.

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The juror gave away details of the complainant's family background, socio-economic status and where she lives.
There's no way the last of this has been heard.

For me this is the most interesting twist of all. What on earth did the forewoman of the jury think she was doing going onto Broadsheet.ie and posting comments about the trial just 7 hours after the verdict? Absolute 110% stupidity, naivety and insanity.

If I was a betting man (and I am) I would gladly wager good money that someone dumb enough to do what that juror did was also dumb enough to be researching the defendants and complainant online and reading public commentary about the trial while it was ongoing. Personally I think there is a better than 50% chance that this juror went rogue more than the one time we now know about. And very soon this person is getting arrested and their phone confiscated and data analysed. If the PSNI find evidence that the juror (the forewoman no less) was reading online about the trial while it was ongoing then we are into serious GUBU territory here. PSNI will be obliged to inform the judge and the judge will be under serious pressure to call it a mis-trial. If that should happen then we will have to go all over again with a fresh brand spanking new jury :eek:

FrancieBrady

defrule wrote: »

I don’t like the sound of “total overhaul of court system”...

If Roe McDermott has her way, a woman can withdraw consent after sobering up in the morning.

Strazdas

Tigger wrote: »

well havent they?
releasing their names before they've been found guilty is stupid
some people have said it allows others to come forwars nbut to them i say
1 can they not come forwards once a gfuilty verdict has been reached
2 what good was releasing harrison's name

I think it's agreed by most people that the naming of accused people in NI rape trials is wrong and should be abolished.

I think whatever the verdict, there would have been a huge backlash. There were arguments raging backwards and forwards on social media for the last few weeks, many supporting the woman and many others supporting the four accused.

Ulysses Gaze

defrule wrote: »

I don’t like the sound of “total overhaul of court system”...

What alternate system do they hope to overhaul the current court system with?

To hell with due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial?

The Legend Of Kira

First off like most people I wasn,t on that jury,, as I wasn,t on it I never heard nor seen testimonies from both sides or seen evidence presented in the courtroom- given this I can,t say I believe them or I believe her as I simply wasn,t there in that courthouse during the trial.

Secondly to anyone involved or attending the protests- what exactly is the aim of such protests & what do the organisers hope or wish to achieve ?

RuMan

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

What alternate system do they hope to overhaul the current court system with?

To hell with due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial?

Should they not be protesting in London somewhere?

TheValeyard

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yup and tomorrow they're ramping it up..... march to Dept of Justice.

https://twitter.com/RuthCoppingerTD/status/979725517946580998

F*cking Ruth Coppinger. Would she ever go back to Mordor. This is ridiculous.

Flipper22

Luxxis wrote: »

So that pic thats going round on twitter from the whatsapp, none of that was jackson?

I read through all the messages that had been published. There were very few messages from jackson, and none that I would say were nasty or in any way justify calling him a pig/sexist/entitled/thug/ any of the other terms people have been calling him.

Have you a link to this pic?

Important to note that people are creating fake posts/tweets too, purporting to be the lads celebrating or whatever

Galwayguy35

Where is this 'rape culture' that fool Coppinger is protesting about?

Also if these consent classes ever did come in it should be for both genders and not just young lads who the radfems seem to think have no control over their sexual urges.

Amalgam

The Irish Times involvement with the Juror comments is just.. strange. There's a story there that isn't yet clear.

Was it the newspaper that informed or..?

hynesie08

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

What alternate system do they hope to overhaul the current court system with?

To hell with due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial?

They don't know, they just want to sound "woke".

Like I said, screaming revolution without knowing how to spell it.

Ulysses Gaze

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

F*cking Ruth Coppinger. Would she ever go back to Mordor. This is ridiculous.

The fact that she once called for the Nationalising of Dell when they were leaving Limerick shows the type of lunatic asylum mentality she has.

Let her tamper with the court system and it would end up as a Kangaroo Court.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of