The Wordress wrote: I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round.
Deleted User wrote: I want to know why two men who are actively raping a woman would invite another woman to join in. Seems pretty counter-intuitive.
Deleted User wrote: It's like a bad porno plot when you think about it.. Rapists letting witnesses walk away freely after inviting them to join in.
Here we go wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » I'm blaming him for his actions. He performed sex acts on a woman who was left bleeding (which he knew) and in hysterics. He boasted about spitroasting said woman (who was left bleeding and in hysterics) on whatsapp. He used his standing as an international rugby player to suggest this was a malicious case that was brought against him. He hasn't apologised to the woman despite the fact Olding has. That's all on him. Stop telling me to not blame him for his actions. He behaved in a way that made a woman feel like she was raped (note I said 'feel like' and am not saying he raped her. Big difference). That is inexcusable. He is an international rugby player (he may have said that once or twice) and he behaved despicably. That is enough for him to lose his job if the IRFU and Ulster sees fit. The IRFU won't be pandering to any politician. If the sponsors don't want those two wearing their logos, then there's plenty the IRFU have on Jackson and Olding if they so need. Also, show me the evidence that she filed a false allegation please. Innocent until proven guilty works both ways. Just in the bleeding I’ve seen it mentioned a few times can you or anyone else clarify I heard somewhere it may have been period blood and if sowoukd be bleeding if sat at home or in the party just that time is this false ?
Faugheen wrote: » I'm blaming him for his actions. He performed sex acts on a woman who was left bleeding (which he knew) and in hysterics. He boasted about spitroasting said woman (who was left bleeding and in hysterics) on whatsapp. He used his standing as an international rugby player to suggest this was a malicious case that was brought against him. He hasn't apologised to the woman despite the fact Olding has. That's all on him. Stop telling me to not blame him for his actions. He behaved in a way that made a woman feel like she was raped (note I said 'feel like' and am not saying he raped her. Big difference). That is inexcusable. He is an international rugby player (he may have said that once or twice) and he behaved despicably. That is enough for him to lose his job if the IRFU and Ulster sees fit. The IRFU won't be pandering to any politician. If the sponsors don't want those two wearing their logos, then there's plenty the IRFU have on Jackson and Olding if they so need. Also, show me the evidence that she filed a false allegation please. Innocent until proven guilty works both ways.
Deleted User wrote: » So it should be illegal to not respect someone? No rape occurred Again, no rape occurred
Andrew Beef wrote: » Paddy Jackson has done NOTHING wrong. He was found not guilty unanimously by a jury which took just over 2 hours to reach that conclusion. The salient evidence, provided by the only sober person at the party, spoke of a non-menacing two guys/one girl threesome; Paddy Jackson sent one Whatsapp which referred to “spit-roasting” which is a colloquial and conventional term for such a threesome. The guy’s down €500,000 and his career hangs in Ireland hangs in the balance; Paddy Jackson is the victim here.
Deleted User wrote: » The Wordress wrote: I think a precedent should be set about using such degrading vocabulary and their behaviour all round. So it should be illegal to not respect someone? Deleted User wrote: I want to know why two men who are actively raping a woman would invite another woman to join in. Seems pretty counter-intuitive. No rape occurred Deleted User wrote: It's like a bad porno plot when you think about it.. Rapists letting witnesses walk away freely after inviting them to join in. Again, no rape occurred
Silentcorner wrote: » Do you think a womans underwear should be paraded around a public court? Do you think a victim should be allowed her own legal representation? Do you think that a defendants "previous good character" should be to the considered in non violent rape cases where we know more often than not the rapist could very well be a kind/"middle class" type/charity working individual...and yet the victim character gets assassinated? I agree, a bit of common sense is what is required....but that seems to be beyond some...mostly those who are happy with our dismal conviction rates.
Faugheen wrote: » If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed. OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered. The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.
Katgurl wrote: » Andrew Beef wrote: » Paddy Jackson has done NOTHING wrong. He was found not guilty unanimously by a jury which took just over 2 hours to reach that conclusion. The salient evidence, provided by the only sober person at the party, spoke of a non-menacing two guys/one girl threesome; Paddy Jackson sent one Whatsapp which referred to “spit-roasting” which is a colloquial and conventional term for such a threesome. The guy’s down €500,000 and his career hangs in Ireland hangs in the balance; Paddy Jackson is the victim here. Yet he testified he didn't have intercourse with her at all. The stories don't tally. So why is at least one of them lying?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Because Jackson publically is slamming the authorities and insinuating that they only brought the case to court because he's an international rugby player. What part of that are you failing to grasp? How could he say this publically and then turn around and say 'I'm sorry for hurting you, but the authorities are wee pricks'? How? Tell me that. That's right, you can't, because the idea of common sense goes right over your head. Olding apologised publically and didn't attack anyone. All Jackson is doing is pointing the finger of him being an absolute animal at other people. Would would apologising privately do for him? **** all, he's supposed to be in damage limitation mode and you're saying it's better for him to repair the damage by apologising privately? Go away, you are so out of your depth it's unreal. Olding said the complainant was wrong, in his apology but that he wanted to say he regretted what happened that night. Why is it not possible that Jackson could say that ''while the police were wrong I want...etc etc etc. You need to calm down a wee bit and think about this tbh.
Faugheen wrote: » Because Jackson publically is slamming the authorities and insinuating that they only brought the case to court because he's an international rugby player. What part of that are you failing to grasp? How could he say this publically and then turn around and say 'I'm sorry for hurting you, but the authorities are wee pricks'? How? Tell me that. That's right, you can't, because the idea of common sense goes right over your head. Olding apologised publically and didn't attack anyone. All Jackson is doing is pointing the finger of him being an absolute animal at other people. Would would apologising privately do for him? **** all, he's supposed to be in damage limitation mode and you're saying it's better for him to repair the damage by apologising privately? Go away, you are so out of your depth it's unreal.
Faugheen wrote: » The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies.
Fann Linn wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed. OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered. The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies. True question: Did the PSNI prove a rape occured?
wexie wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies. Verdict also certainly doesn't mean that the crime DID happen.... You seem to have difficulties grasping that bit?
Mrsmum wrote: » The answer imo is that if the claimant, usually women were treated with in a more respectful way, more women would report their rapes as it is the court case itself that is so offputting so naturally more cases, more guilty verdicts but then again maybe men don't want more women to test their cases.
Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » If I rob a bank, but I'm found not guilty in court, the bank was robbed. OJ Simpson was charged with the murder of his wife and Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty. Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman were still murdered. The verdict does not mean the crime didn't happen. Stop spreading these lies. Serious question. If the 4 defendants were found not guilty and you say she was raped then who raped her? Are you saying that there is an unknown third party i.e the rapist?
Katgurl wrote: » Yet he testified he didn't have intercourse with her at all. The stories don't tally. So why is at least one of them lying?
Faugheen wrote: » Nope, it doesn't mean the rape didn't occur, I refer you to my examples above again. Just they couldn't prove it. Were Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson not murdered based on your logic? A yes or no will do. Thanks.
Muahahaha wrote: » It had blood stains on it, it was therefore one of the exhibits to prove she was left bleeding and had to be produced. AFAIK her white jeans were also an exhibit. Im not sure if a photo of it would have sufficed but from the prosecutions point of view they would have wanted her bloodied clothes shown for the impact it would have had on the jury, a photo would not have achieved that as strongly. Also exhibiting photos could lead to the defence saying the photo was doctored or other such arguments to rule the evidence as null and void. Its better just to proceed with the actual hard exhibits and remove any doubt. .
tritium wrote: » Intercourse isn’t the only form of sex. Oral sex was I believe conceded to have happened
GreeBo wrote: » Again I ask you, what exactly do you think your suggestions are going to do to improve conviction rates?
Faugheen wrote: » I don't know. For all I know the rape didn't happen. However, it would be wrong for me to say it didn't happen. You understanding this yet?
Mrsmum wrote: » You don't understand. Wishful thinking won't change the way lots of people now view him. I am being a better friend to him than you are because you are keeping him stuck in anger. Women are always told not to be so emotional and make bad decisions therein. Well now Paddy is where he is and anger is no good to him. Apologise for his part in the whole disgraceful debacle and ask, not demand to be allowed to return to the game he loves. The world owes you nothing and we can all be out on our ears very quickly. Same with him.
Mrsmum wrote: » I don't want a sleazy and insincere apology at all. What would make you think that. A small man finds it difficult or impossible to examine himself and all of his behaviour critically whereas a big man knows there is no shame in apologising for the unintentional hurt you have caused another and in this case also the public.
GreeBo wrote: » Arguably more women reporting rape would lower the conviction rates, not increase them. Classy closing point btw.
RuMan wrote: » U dont seem to understand. Look at it from his position. He had consensual sex with a woman who falsely accussed him of rape. He may have to leave his home town club and may never play internationally. He's missed out on a grand slam and big financial rewards. Again be believes it was entirely consensual and the woman willingly had sex and changed her mind and made a false accusations. I accept you think he is lying but if he isnt why in the name of god would he apologise? He probably feels she owes him an apology.
Oaklyn Early Fauna wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » I don't know. For all I know the rape didn't happen. However, it would be wrong for me to say it didn't happen. You understanding this yet? I'm not trying to rise you by the way, just curious. So you believe a rape might or might not have happened. Fair enough, that's definitely a fair statement I guess. Maybe people can just move on hopefully.
Fann Linn wrote: » Equally there's a large body of people who believe he did nothing wrong. Haven't looked at this threads poll lately, but what does that say? Doesn't really matter however as the only verdict that counts is the one that came from the courts.
Andrew Beef wrote: » Paddy Jackson has done NOTHING wrong.
Fann Linn wrote: » True question: Did the PSNI prove a rape occured?
Faugheen wrote: » What I think is she believes she was raped, but the two lads understood it to be consensual because she didn't give an indication that she wasn't happy with what was going on. It's a sorry affair for all involved I think, and it definitely opened up the discussion on consent. A lot of people talk about the #IBelieveHer movement yet here's there's a real 'it didn't happen, there was no rape, she lied, she should apologise'. There is nothing in this case that proves either extreme, and the middle ground appears to be non-existent because one side just wants to antagonise the other and the middle ground is squeezed out. Hell, people will read the first couple of paragraphs and then throw some bull**** nonsense which gets the discussion back down to amateur levels. While Olding believes his perception of the night was true, he still acknowledges that the complainant (and I've always called her the complainant, not the victim) left his company hurt and upset because of his actions (intentional or not), has apologised for that and has disappeared from the public eye to let the dust settle. Jackson, on the other hand, has just attacked the system for going after an international rugby player, and has been a PR disaster by issuing threats of lawsuits to people on social media (whether you think he should or shouldn't, he has still done incredible damage to himself). He just didn't know when to quit like Olding did or he's being advised very badly. His reputation was going to take a hit from this but what he's doing is after making it considerably worse.
Faugheen wrote: » What I think is she believes she was raped, but the two lads understood it to be consensual because she didn't give an indication that she wasn't happy with what was going on. It's a sorry affair for all involved I think, and it definitely opened up the discussion on consent. A lot of people talk about the #IBelieveHer movement yet here's there's a real 'it didn't happen, there was no rape, she lied, she should apologise'. T
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
