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

salmocab wrote: »

You claimed rugby in Leinster is for posh boys it’s not, not even in Dublin where there is a big concentration of private schools. Yeah the Leinster team has a majority of privately educated player and it is for the reason you say but that doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme, there are clubs in Tallaght, clondalkin, finglas, crumlin and the liberties hardly the poshest of places.

My son played rugby and far from private schools most of them were reared !

RuMan wrote: »

Agreed

You agree with the bit where I agreed with you?

tretorn wrote: »

So, first of all you see nothing unfair about Paddy Jackson having to spend thousands of pounds of his earnings defending himself against allegations that have proved to be unfounded, what sort of a planet do you live on.

I think you'll find the defendants got great value for their money, particularly in this case. That's the whole point of hiring the best legal mind they could afford.

tretorn wrote: »

How would you feelif someone invited themselves into your house and into your bedroom for consensual sex and then went home and made an allegation of rape against you. You wait for a year for the PSNI and the PPS to come to a decision whether you are to becharged and all this time you are suspended from your career, we dont even know whether Jackson and Olding were paid while suspended. If people dont ask how in the name of God this mess was created for citizens of this country then it could happen to each and every one of us.

People are well aware of the behaviour of the men involved in this particular which led to the situation in which they found themselves tretorn, and I can say with a considerable measure of confidence that no, people need not fear that they will ever find themselves in the same situation as the men who were involved in this particular case, because most people don't actually behave like the men in this particular case did.

What planet do you live on that you imagine people shouldn't be held entirely responsible for the consequences of their own behaviour?

tretorn wrote: »

There is an inquiry being undertaken at the moment into the taking of this case, the details of this were already linked further up in the thread...


Thats enough evidence for me, the case should never have been brought and if it was my family I would be seeking return of my legal expenses and I would go to the Court of European Justice if I had to. Jackson and Oldings lives have been ruined and this isnt enough for you.

Not going to quote the whole thing tretorn as much of it is completely irrelevant, and yet if the evidence was there, you'd actually be able to link to it. While there might be enough evidence to convince you of something, when you try to convince others of the same thing, you first have to produce some actual evidence for your claims.

As regards your claims that the defendants lives in this case have been ruined, clearly that is an outcome that has yet to be determined as to whether their lives actually have been ruined, or are you just being hysterical.

tretorn wrote: »

We should be all equal before the law regardless of our gender, women cannot make progress in having their rights respected by trampling all over mens rights, this is a recipe for disaster.

We are all equal before the law tretorn, and I would argue that with anyone who would suggest otherwise, whether they are male or female, and the fact that the defendants in this particular case were found not guilty of the offences they were charged with in a court of law certainly suggests that your claims that men's rights are being trampled on is nothing but hysterical nonsense.

RuMan wrote: »

Signed up 4 broadband recently after moving, when i was looking at the options price and speed were considerations in my decision. Who the provider sponsored was not.
I focking hate Arsenal but that didnt stop me flying Emirates recently.

Seriously, you don't think your dislike of an English football team is anything comparable to the situation we are talking about here.

The players are used as ambassadors for these companies - bearing mind there could be billboards of the players, do you think the companies involved would risk them being defaced for starters. What about Q&As - would they risk people turning up and asking them awkward questions about their attitude to women?

From a promotional point of view they are a liability to the IRFU and the sponsoring companies.

tretorn wrote: »

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510

Here is your link, of course there is accountability over the bringing of this case, each case has to meet an evidential test or else apart from ruining innocent mens lives the taxpayers money is squandered, someone has to explain decisions that we give people power to make, there has to be accountability for bringing the wore charges possible on men.

Did you even read your own link? The accountability is right there! The evidentiary test to proceed with a prosecution was met! The article itself quotes a spokesperson for the PPS who said:


“Any claims that an initial decision was made not to prosecute or that advices were received that the Test for Prosecution was not met, are wholly inaccurate. There was only ever one decision taken in relation to these defendants – and that was a decision to prosecute.


And I already quoted from a different source the very same statement -

In a statement, Marianne O'Kane, assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, said: "The evidence received in this case was subjected to a very thorough and careful examination by a team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel, before we concluded that the test for prosecution was met, in line with our code for prosecutors.

"This meant that there was both sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.

"This case was properly brought before the courts and overcame a number of legal challenges. It was ultimately right that the matter was placed before a jury to make their determination."


Source: BBC News

"lets all congratulate the complainant for her bravery in making these claims", really, seriously. Its not our fault that dratted Jury with no police training or no PPS training couldnt see what was there in front of them.

Stupid jury making the PNSI and the PPS look like a bunch of headless chickens.

That's something you surmised yourself, contrary to all evidence presented.

Poor Jackson might as well have rapist branded all over his face for the rest of his life, he could lose his house now trying to pay his legal costs.

I dont know how some decision makers can sleep at night.

But he was found not guilty after he and the other defendants employed the top barristers in the UK to defend themselves. They made that decision for themselves, they weren't forced to, and their lawyers did what they were being paid to do. They are responsible for the outcomes of their decisions, and again I don't see anything unfair about that.

jm08 wrote: »

67,500 have signed that petition to the IRFU.

4.7 million haven't.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

4.7 million haven't.

4.7 million haven't signed a petition to keep them either

tretorn wrote: »

It took eleven jurors less than four hours so thats less than an hour per man charged to say not guilty, imagine that.

It took the PPS twelve months to decide whether to charge the men or not and it took the jury less than four hours to go through the non existent evidence.

God only knows what the "team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel cost", I really hope they have been assigned to tea making duties. Someone somewhere needs to be held to account for this but you may be sure no one will take responsibility.

It would be great if one of the Jury spilled the beans, they would have been there and seen all the body language and that uusually tells you what you need to know.

Some of the jury should be recruited to the PPS office, it sounds like that office needs a dose of common sense.

I don't know how you're still not getting this, unless you really don't want to, but the PPS decided that they had met the evidentiary requirements, and that it was in the public interest to proceed with a prosecution. It takes time for cases to be investigated, and time for the cases to come before the Courts.

I've also already explained to you why members of the jury are unlikely ever to spill the beans, as they could find themselves charged with contempt of court.

At least Paddy jackson paid for his own legal defence not the woman who accused him, her costs are laid at the taxpayers door. She had the resources of the state thats you and me and everyone else on her side and the acquitted men had to dig deep so they had some chance against the State.

What part of the alleged victim appearing as a witness for the State are you not understanding? The State were not representing the alleged victim in the States case against the defendants. The alleged victim absolutely did not have the resources of the State on her side any more than you or I would not have the resources of the State on our side if we were to appear as witnesses for the State. We wouldn't need to apply to the Courts for legal aid for legal representation, as we would not be the persons on trial.

The acquitted men dug deep because they were entitled to legal representation, and they clearly wanted the best legal representation they could afford to defend themselves against the charges made against them. That is entirely their right.

Imagine if she had laid those accusations against someone who didnt have the means to pay for good defence, that person would be locked up now without a shadow of a doubt.

If you're asking me to imagine something, then you surely have to accept that there is an inherent doubt as to whether it could.actually ever be a reality. Again - it would depend entirely upon the circumstances of each and every case, as opposed to your own admission from earlier that you will be looking at every case from now on and wondering is this another fanciful tale, without having even heard any evidence!

If you dont see anything unfair about that then all I wish for you is that you find yourself in a similar situation to Paddy Jackson sometime soon, it might help you to gain some perspective. Do onto others......................

I'm a firm believer in do unto others tretorn, but I'm resisting laughing at your use of the maxim in defence of these men's behaviour when not one of them would welcome upon themselves what they chose to put this girl through. It might help you gain some perspective if you were to put yourself in the position the girl in this case was in. The experience certainly gave the men involved some perspective on their behaviour, and that's exactly why they made public apologies for their behaviour. Even the men involved in this case finally came to understand that their behaviour and their attitudes were unacceptable, and frankly what they paid their defence team was the reason I suggested they got fantastic value for money.

You've tried every which way to have people imagine themselves, and their sons in the same situation as the defendants and you've failed miserably time and time again. Perhaps you should be questioning why that is as opposed to looking to lay the responsibility and the blame for their behaviour, and the circumstances in which they now find themselves, on everyone else but the men themselves.

jm08 wrote: »

Any complaints would be made to the club directly.

Absolutely. And a list should be kept of the complainants so they can be banned from future games.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Easy to sign a petition-yes, but take 67 500 from 80 K, and you have a rather empty stadium.

You had hammerheads sign petitions from all around the world to stop Ched Evans from playing again. What percentage of the signatories even knew who he was? Half of them couldn't even point the UK out on a map, nevermind know anything about the case. How many of them know now that he was since found not guilty? Where is the petition to apologise to this innocent man, who has had the best years of his life snatched away?

RuMan wrote: »

Jacko played for Ireland against Japan in June 2017 mate. Havent bothered reading the rest of ur post

Not your mate. Let's be clear. It was a test match, hardly major competition. And June was also the date of his being charged. So you see how I missed that. (You're not trying to get Olding back, are you-not as valuable I see. Possibly because of his many injuries. So what is the investment in Jackson?).

upandcumming wrote: »

Absolutely. And a list should be kept of the complainants so they can be banned from future games.

That's just a ridiculous statement (this from someone who didn't even sign the petition). You cannot ban someone for having an opinion you disagree with. It's only gonna lead to another trip to court-and further anger.
(This kind of logic would have people from Roscommon banned from Rugby games because that county voted no to same sex marriage.)

There were others who signed a petition wanting Rory Best to be removed as captain. To me that was ridiculous, but not a reason to ban them from the stadiums.
Jackson's not even on the team-if he is never allowed play for Ireland again, are you going to boycott Irish rugby? Of course not.

upandcumming wrote: »

You had hammerheads sign petitions from all around the world to stop Ched Evans from playing again. What percentage of the signatories even knew who he was? Half of them couldn't even point the UK out on a map, nevermind know anything about the case. How many of them know now that he was since found not guilty? Where is the petition to apologise to this innocent man, who has had the best years of his life snatched away?

Yeah, after he was convicted of rape. Before he had it overturned two years later. (I checked the dates on the petition).
And plenty of people apologised to him, including the 'harpies' such as Loose Women. Many to avoid being sued.

Come on people-be sensible.