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

martingriff

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ross Byrne ahead of some of them. Don't forget there's a lad called Madigan as well.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Johnny McPhillips, McCarthy.. a huge cue ahead of him now and he may never reach the standards he reached against Scotland in the 2013 6 Nations again..

Knew I would miss a few. Of course if they do never play for Ulster again and go abroad then it is a non question

BoatMad

NAGDEFI wrote: »

My problem is actually not so much with the language the lads used but with older people who should no better saying it's just banter. We have to move on from that attitude. The times are different. Those men are repeating what goes on in the bubble. But leaders have to have the courage, in all aspects of life, to say no this is wrong rather than trying to be one of the lads.

Education...

more importantly , the " language " was not uttered in public , so are you suggesting that private conservations , should result in sanction. Do you apply that to all private conversations

The fact is , this conversation was only in the public domain because of a trial , its entirely wrong to judge this as if they had uttered it knowingly in public

BBDBB

NAGDEFI wrote: »

When you talk of personal feeling on a public forum you're really dealing in pure guessing.

But for some reason i feel more general remorse from Stuart Olding. Paddy seems to be playing PR catch up. And i just don't feel as 'forgiving' as i do towards Olding. Pure bull personal interpretation i know!

and thats totally reasonable give the timeframes involved

its interesting to note that the contrition showed by PJ is more thought through than SO, does that make it more or less genuine?
Does that indicate its less sincere or more? How close is it to the genuine values of the two?
Does it indicate that SO is sincere and PJ has been cynically advised of the steps he should take? or does it simply indicate that SO's advisors were sharper than PJ's?

Impossible to say, so you are right to go with your gut as you see it right now.
Thats not to say we shouldn't be open minded to the possibility of changing that view as events unfold

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You say it was crass. That is your value judgement.
They make value judgements about certain people and they are misogynist.

Can you see the hypocrisy in this?

No hypocrisy would be if I called women sluts and prostitutes and then criticized them for calling women sluts and prostitutes

BoatMad

Personally though, I don't agree with certain actions outlined and admitted throughout the trial that were done by certain people towards a certain person. I don't believe they are appropriate of someone representing a Province or Country. Nothing to do with legality. And nothing to do with forgiveness. I just don't agree that someone who behaved in such a manner, should represent Ireland or a Province in Ireland. that's all. Is that unreasonable

yes it is ,
nothing illegal occurred, it was in effect a series of actions between adults , what you are saying is you want your public figures to be vice free and virtuous , i.e. beyond standards applied in private , good luck with that

freshpopcorn

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Education...

I really agree with education and it's important to come from people who people kind of respect.
If I was a teenage guy in my area the only man who's on about this/giving out about it is a gay man who's a feminist. He wouldn't be the type people on a team or a bunch of young lands would look up to/take advice off of.

NAGDEFI

BoatMad wrote: »

it is not up to you to " accept " anything , the law was not broken as determined by the judicial process , we do not prosecute " thought crime " , even if some semi-histerical journos advocate that

where we to seek " forgiveness " for language , half the country would be in confessionals !

No but you have to accept that people were genuinely offended. They are not a 'mob', they haven't been out on the streets. But they're opinion is as valid as anyone else.

This is where the crux will lie. Would Schmidt be, i don't like the word 'forced' but be encouraged to play the lads? Will public opinion make it not worth the hassle? These are big 'ifs'.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

No hypocrisy would be if I called women sluts and prostitutes and then criticized them for calling women sluts and prostitutes

You made a value judgement and seek to deny them the same right to do it in private.

I don't think they made any comment on your judgement.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

No but you have to accept that people were genuinely offended. They are not a 'mob', they haven't been out on the streets. But they're opinion is as valid as anyone else.

This is where the crux will lie. Would Schmidt be, i don't like the word 'forced' but be encouraged to play the lads? Will public opinion make it not worth the hassle? These are big 'ifs'.

If they are playing well for Ulster, I think he wouldn't think twice about it.

NAGDEFI

BoatMad wrote: »

more importantly , the " language " was not uttered in public , so are you suggesting that private conservations , should result in sanction. Do you apply that to all private conversations

The fact is , this conversation was only in the public domain because of a trial , its entirely wrong to judge this as if they had uttered it knowingly in public

That's an anachronism. A verbal conversation between two, three people may be private. Nothing on social media is private. Digital record. Herein lies a lot of the problem.

[Deleted User]

BBDBB wrote: »

Perhaps, however I think we can extrapolate to other club sides, especially those named after their home town or city and say they would feel equally aggrieved, ie no more or less than a provincial side

Well I think we're agreed no club, county or country want's such attention in the first place.

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If they are playing well for Ulster, I think he wouldn't think twice about it.

Yeah, they won't be abroad. Interesting times ahead.

BoatMad

NAGDEFI wrote: »

That's an anachronism. A verbal conversation between two, three people may be private. Nothing on social media is private. Digital record. Herein lies a lot of the problem.

sorry , it was made public as a result of the judicial process , they are entitled to their privacy , merely because I , say , use , what app , do not entitle you or anyone to sit in judgement as to my language and then suggest I publicly apologise for it , this is getting very close to "thought crime" or form of witchcraft trials

NAGDEFI

Trouble with all these 'moral' debates is the polarisation. I was accused of being a 1950s priest last night:D But i think all parties have to meet half way and recognise the genuine opinions and insights of all. There is no right or wrong but we have to respect each others opinions. The changing morality in society. Yet protection of the young and vulnerable.

FrancieBrady

BoatMad wrote: »

sorry , it was made public as a result of the judicial process , they are entitled to their privacy , merely because I , say , use , what app , do not entitle you or anyone to sit in judgement as to my language and then suggest I publicly apologise for it , this is getting very close to "thought crime" or form of witchcraft trials

It was made public with the single purpose of painting them as women hating thugs capable of rape.

No other reason.

freshpopcorn

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Trouble with all these 'moral' debates is the polarisation. I was accused of being a 1950s priest last night:D But i think all parties have to meet half way and recognise the genuine opinions and insights of all. There is no right or wrong but we have to respect each others opinions. The changing morality in society. Yet protection of the young and vulnerable.

You got accused of being priest and I got accused of having threesomes!

BBDBB

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not getting involved in either justice or vengeance.

I'm not getting involved in discussions re: the legal decision made in the NI courts. That's done with.

Personally though, I don't agree with certain actions outlined and admitted throughout the trial that were done by certain people towards a certain person. I don't believe they are appropriate of someone representing a Province or Country. Nothing to do with legality. And nothing to do with forgiveness. I just don't agree that someone who behaved in such a manner, should represent Ireland or a Province in Ireland. that's all. Is that unreasonable?

Not at all, you have a standard to which you hold others and presumably yourself. If they or you fall below that standard then there should be a consequence. I understand that and cant say I would be too different, though I may well differ on whether the punnishment fits the crime.

The interesting debate is to the exact nature of that borderline, where it exists, what constitutes a breach, what doesnt and afterwards a suitable and appropriate consequence.

The second point of interest is the scale of forgiveness. How long should such a ban on an international career last?
Til the end of his career?
A few years?
Time already served?

Same questions for a Provincial career?

At some point the punishment against behaviour thats unsavoury and inappropriate becomes unfair and too severe. Even without minimising the offence.

NAGDEFI

BoatMad wrote: »

sorry , it was made public as a result of the judicial process , they are entitled to their privacy , merely because I , say , use , what app , do not entitle you or anyone to sit in judgement as to my language and then suggest I publicly apologise for it , this is getting very close to "thought crime" or form of witchcraft trials

Yes but a one on one conversation is nigh on impossible to use in a courtroom as evidence. Social media is different, it's recordable and obviously not private when it's in the papers before a court case. Gary Walsh of Laois made what he felt was a personal tweet. It wasn't, he wore a Laois jersey, with sponsors MW Hire, who kicked up. No pronouncement online is private now.

BoatMad

NAGDEFI wrote: »

No but you have to accept that people were genuinely offended. They are not a 'mob', they haven't been out on the streets. But they're opinion is as valid as anyone else.

This is where the crux will lie. Would Schmidt be, i don't like the word 'forced' but be encouraged to play the lads? Will public opinion make it not worth the hassle? These are big 'ifs'.

people are offended by elections, the weather, the politicians , being " offended " in itself is irrelevant , there is no court of public opinion . most of this " offence " is a form of public virtue , private vice issue, that " we" want things in public to be seen to be clean and virtuous, but in reality we turn a blind eye to things in private , a form of decadence that allowed the clerical abuse scandals to develop

Muahahaha

blanch152 wrote: »

You are forgetting employment law. They were found innocent, unless there is something in their contract in respect of behaviour that is enforceable, they will have a case for restraint of trade and loss of earnings.

Ah jaysis how naive can you get man??

Employment law ffs, their very contracts with Ulster Rugby are written by a lawyer with expertise in employment law and who was tasked with a clear objective of protecting the employer in all circumstances. When those contracts got drafted the lawyer was working for Ulster Rugby, not Paddy Jackson or any other player.

Pro-sports contracts have clauses on gross misconduct which include bringing the game into disrepute and bringing the club into disrepute. The lawyer purposefully words this to be as encompassing of any behaviour imaginable.

NAGDEFI

freshpopcorn wrote: »

You got accused of being priest and I got accused of having threesomes!

I think we hit the middle ground Fresh!!

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I think we hit the middle ground Fresh!!

I was called a rapist. Triple whammy.

NAGDEFI

BoatMad wrote: »

people are offended by elections, the weather, the politicians , being " offended " in itself is irrelevant , there is no court of public opinion . most of this " offence " is a form of public virtue , private vice issue, that " we" want things in public to be seen to be clean and virtuous, but in reality we turn a blind eye to things in private , a form of decadence that allowed the clerical abuse scandals to develop

There's varying types of offence. No one is responsible for poor weather. But people may not want people who used such language representing their province/country. People of moderate views. Public opinion has a role.

The clerical abuse cases are totally irrelevant here. People voted with their feet not to attend church in many cases. They #broke' the church in Ireland.

BoatMad

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Yes but a one on one conversation is nigh on impossible to use in a courtroom as evidence. Social media is different, it's recordable and obviously not private when it's in the papers before a court case. Gary Walsh of Laois made what he felt was a personal tweet. It wasn't, he wore a Laois jersey, with sponsors MW Hire, who kicked up. No pronouncement online is private now.

I simply make the point that they were using a private media , to communicate between themselves , it wasn't twitter and whats app isnt social media , its a private ( and encrypted ) communications channel

what you are suggesting is that by merely using any communications medium , I should apologise publicly for bad or appropriate language , thats clearly nonsense

Despite what you say people have a right to have their conversations that they expect to be private ,remain private

The fact that through a fault of the criminal justice system in NI. all this evidence was available to the papers , simply does not suddenly make a private conversation public

Was is poor behaviour and distasteful , probably , howver it was intended to be private , hence should they be contrite about it , no , I dont beleive so.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The hoo ha seems to have died down if my FB is anything to go by.

A one week wonder to be replaced by outrage about McGregor.

Twitter is still going mad. So is Facebook. The balls.ie comments alone are none too kind regarding Jackson's recent comments.

So it's not dying down-the McGregor story is just another day of McGregor being McGregor. Even Miriam's 'I'm not running for Prez' comment is 'blah'.

A full page advert in Irish Times called for his non-return. It's not dying down, even his apology is being called out as a non-apology, or a tactic to get back into the game.

Some comments are of the 'start learning French, boys'.

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was called a rapist. Triple whammy.

Ha! I did listen to you Francie and think i've come half way.

It's like anything some evenings, you can be full of your opinions and think black and white, more evenings you're more reflective.

[Deleted User]

BBDBB wrote: »

its interesting to note that the contrition showed by PJ is more thought through than SO, does that make it more or less genuine?
Does that indicate its less sincere or more? How close is it to the genuine values of the two?

My personal view is that press releases and public statements in general are only as good as the PR advice they're based on. I'm usually cynical of them most of the time (especially US celebrity press releases) as they are designed to manipulate public opinion, usually for personal gain, but I'm also willing to accept aspects of them in certain circumstances.

I'm cynical in general, of the public statements made post trial in this case, in terms of their motivation and what they are designed to achieve. Why bother make them public?
if it's for personal gain, then I'm not interested in listening to them- you don't have to release a public statement. Just talk or write to the people who matter most on the topic you're issuing a statement on. You don't have to tell everyone.

BBDBB

NAGDEFI wrote: »

It is.. The area is as grey as grey can be.

At the end of the day we just don't know what went on. But when the defendants were found not guilty you have to accepte the judicial process as part of democracy.

As we can see on here, ethics, morality, whether the lads should play again. It's all dependent on our very diverging views.

exactly, I suspect that like you, I consider myself to be a moral and not a vengeful person, by the same token Im also aware of my faults and my failings over the years when tested. Im a human being, I try to be good and sometimes I make mistakes.

In the past I have been asked to evaluate the behaviour of others and whilst the deliberations are exceedingly tough if you have to make a call, one way or the other, eventually you have to decide, maybe after a debate with someone else, or maybe you just have to listen to your conscience and make a call that you can live with, and accept that not everyone will clap you on the back and say well don, great decision

jm08

tretorn wrote: »

But if the boorish jock culture is part of rugby then dont go to VIP nightclubs in the hope that your idol will give you a quick shag.

Let the rugby people behave the way they like, if they want threesomes in the bed and women are happy to be the spit in the roast then you mind your own business. Lots of people here claimed to know what a spit roast was, ie two men and a woman, they know what it is even while they say they recoil clutching their holy beads and bottles of holy water to their chests. For people who claim to be horrified and shockified by lads texts they have no problem repeating the contents of texts ad nauseum. If you werent shocked and most people arent by the texts then hearing them repeating continously isnt going to change that.

Paddy knows exactly who has been in various beds doing what and the IRFU know this. He probably has all sorts of whatsapp messages on his phone that would make the chat he was involved in look like a nuns whatsapp group.

He will have to be handled with kidgloves.

Kathy Sheridan has a different take on the responsibilities of sports people.
Sportsmen are role models – whether they like it or not

Kathy Sheridan: Decent men who have influence stand up for those who don’t

I’ve known some successful rugby players, seen them being mobbed by starry-eyed girls yet be still able to hang on to their essential decency and self-respect. I’ve also known some who were encouraged – by both men and women – to see themselves as helpless wee creatures in the face of all that adulation. Sure how could any man resist...?

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sportsmen-are-role-models-whether-they-like-it-or-not-1.3449342

I'd sat Kathy has a good insight into rugby culture, bearing in mind who her husband was.

NAGDEFI

BoatMad wrote: »

I simply make the point that they were using a private media , to communicate between themselves , it wasn't twitter and whats app isnt social media , its a private ( and encrypted ) communications channel

what you are suggesting is that by merely using any communications medium , I should apologise publicly for bad or appropriate language , thats clearly nonsense

Despite what you say people have a right to have their conversations that they expect to be private ,remain private

The fact that through a fault of the criminal justice system in NI. all this evidence was available to the papers , simply does not suddenly make a private conversation public

Was is poor behaviour and distasteful , probably , howver it was intended to be private , hence should they be contrite about it , no , I dont beleive so.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Anything you type today, you have to be so careful, especially public figures like them. I don't look on anything sent on a phone as private..it can be halfway around the world in a second.

Again education.