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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

2smiggy

facehugger99 wrote: »

posting derogatory comments about the girls in question afterwards. He's not the kind of person that should be representing Ireland on the international stage, he's not the kind of person a sponsor wants to see wearing their corporate logo.

They're the facts.

Where did he 'post' these remarks ? some public forum like this ? And what exactly did he 'post' ?

I would easily have him as the number two outhalf in Ireland , behind 33 year Sexton, who has a history of concussions. I would not be surprised if he is the number one outhalf after the next world cup (or before depending on Sextons health)

FrancieBrady

The Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club (URSC) has said the vast majority of members have made it clear they wish to see Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding reinstated to playing duties.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ulster-supporters-club-wants-jackson-and-olding-to-resume-playing-1.3456698

Jimbob1977

Jackson and Olding were found not guilty at Belfast Crown Court, even though lots of people believe they were guilty.

They should be able to return to work.

Ulster Rugby and the IRFU would be more concerned with sponsorship money, rather than morals.

It's not a Court of Law that's important these days. It's the Court of Public Opinion.

tritium

facehugger99 wrote: »

Why would the IRFU bother forcing the issue? He's third choice outhalf at best.

Paddy and chums seem to have a penchant for spitroasting drunk teenagers in their downtime and then posting derogatory comments about the girls in question afterwards. He's not the kind of person that should be representing Ireland on the international stage, he's not the kind of person a sponsor wants to see wearing their corporate logo.

They're the facts.

Paddy's learning that actions have consequences.

Personally I think it will be positive for society in the long run. Will make the next generation of young lads more circumspect and gentlemanly in their behavior.

Interesting view of the facts. It’s equally factual that he was sexually propositioned by a young lady when he was too drunk to be able to give consent.

That he was then charged with a crime on the basis of at least a questionable level of inconsistent evidence

That he has been subjected to significant alleged defamatory comment in spite of being cleared by a jury of any crime in an extrodinarily brief deliberation time. Many of those comments are significantly worse and more derogatory than anything seen in Jackson’s WhatsApp

Those “facts” may be accused of bias, but to no greater extent than what you posted. Perspective is very important in a case like this.

In terms of his future rugby career that’s an interesting one. The ulster supporters petition would indicate theres a willingness to have him play for the province again. Ulster are also not exactly blessed in that position, nor flush with cash to address that, and necessity of results will trump opinion to a degree here I’d wager since sponsors equally wont follow a dud brand. His time out of the game may limit how well he can perform for some time however.

The national team is trickier. He’s actually probably still the second best player in that position, however Carberry will need game time and long term is probably a superior player. Jackson’s possible rustiness will also limit his chances there. I’d expect regardless of the trial it would be 12 months plus before his level would be back to a point where he’d be called up, which would probably be convenient for everyone since it would appear as a “penance” of sorts

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Maybe 4 or 5 years, who knows. I suspect rugby will move on in the interim given the conveyor belt of talent being produced. I doubt there'll be a major clamoring for the return of Paddy Jackson when there's a couple of young excited outhalves in place in the next couple of years. Why would you bother, too much baggage.

The most chilling aspect of this is the casual disregard for human beings who at the very worst made a mistake.

Sacrificed on the altar of mostly faux outrage.

what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Maybe 4 or 5 years, who knows. I suspect rugby will move on in the interim given the conveyor belt of talent being produced. I doubt there'll be a major clamoring for the return of Paddy Jackson when there's a couple of young excited outhalves in place in the next couple of years. Why would you bother, too much baggage.

The most chilling aspect of this is the casual disregard for human beings who at the very worst made a mistake.

Sacrificed on the altar of mostly faux outrage.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

Sorry, that just doesn't read well for me. I don't understand what you are saying.

tritium

cloudatlas wrote: »

what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

Really? What bothers me is that a group of people have used this trial to make a well orchestrated statement regardless of the impact on the lives of 4 innocent men, or indeed their accuser. From #notmycaptain through #ibelieveher this has played out as an exercise in using people’s lives to further an agenda, which is frankly shameful. The trial verdict was just an inconvenient speed bump to be disregarded.

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

Sorry, that just doesn't read well for me. I don't understand what you are saying.

I reckoned you would struggle with the English but in the end I decided to go ahead anyway.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

I reckoned you would struggle with the English but in the end I decided to go ahead anyway.

Oh dear. We are reduced to insults. Carry on.

facehugger99

cloudatlas wrote: »

but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

Indeed.

We do not take our moral lead from political and religious leaders any more. It is public opinion that sets the standard and tells us where the line shall be drawn.

The burden of proof may have been too high to secure a legal conviction, but Paddy's actions have been discussed in the court of public opinion and Paddy's actions have been found most wanting. It's an interesting case where the public have effectively decided on the censure that the courts could not.

The IRFU will try to draw a veil across this unsavoury incident as quickly as possible. Expect an internal inquiry that lasts months, during which they will obviously be suspended from playing and for them to be quietly dropped at the end of their current contracts.

cloudatlas

tritium wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

what bothers me is every time there's a commentary in the paper someone either pipes up not your business or dey found innocent to try and tamper with the discussion on the behaviour exhibited by these men or to try and shut it down. It's in the public domain we know what the atitudes were, having an opinion is not a right being offended is not a right but I can have an opinion and exercise it if I want.

Really? What bothers me is that a group of people have used this trial to make a well orchestrated statement regardless of the impact on the lives of 4 innocent men, or indeed their accuser. From #notmycaptain through #ibelieveher this has played out as an exercise in using people’s lives to further an agenda, which is frankly shameful. The trial verdict was just an inconvenient speed bump to be disregarded.

According to this thread this will have no impact and it was only a small group of feminazi's marching so you have nothing to worry about. Also what continues to be ignored is how victims are treated in court and the benefits a change would have for both male and female victims. Of course the trial brought up emotions for victims that can't be helped or curtailed.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

According to this thread this will have no impact and it was only a small group of feminazi's marching so you have nothing to worry about. Also what continues to be ignored is how victims are treated in court and the benefits a change would have for both male and female victims. Of course the trial brought up emotions for victims that can't be helped or curtailed.

The court decided she wasn't a victim.

What extra evidence do you have that proves she was?

cloudatlas

Don't be ridiculous the lad issued an apology the other day but you are all determined to ignore the content of that apology, it's simply too inconvenient.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Indeed.

We do not take our moral lead from political and religious leaders any more. It is public opinion that sets the standard and tells us where the line shall be drawn.

The burden of proof may have been too high to secure a legal conviction, but Paddy's actions have been discussed in the court of public opinion and Paddy's actions have been found most wanting. It's an interesting case where the public have effectively decided on the censure that the courts could not.

The IRFU will try to draw a veil across this unsavoury incident as quickly as possible. Expect an internal inquiry that lasts months, during which they will obviously be suspended from playing and for them to be quietly dropped at the end of their current contracts.

Where does you 'moral' objections to a 3some come from then? Jackson, Olding and this woman didn't invent the concept.
Are you 'morally' against them generally?

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous the lad issued an apology the other day but you are all determined to ignore the content of that apology, it's simply too inconvenient.

He did not apologise for 'raping' her.

Fann Linn

facehugger99 wrote: »

Indeed.

We do not take our moral lead from political and religious leaders any more. It is public opinion that sets the standard and tells us where the line shall be drawn.

The burden of proof may have been too high to secure a legal conviction, but Paddy's actions have been discussed in the court of public opinion and Paddy's actions have been found most wanting. It's an interesting case where the public have effectively decided on the censure that the courts could not.

The IRFU will try to draw a veil across this unsavoury incident as quickly as possible. Expect an internal inquiry that lasts months, during which they will obviously be suspended from playing and for them to be quietly dropped at the end of their current contracts.

Any chance of next weeks lotto numbers?

cloudatlas

FrancieBrady wrote: »

cloudatlas wrote: »

According to this thread this will have no impact and it was only a small group of feminazi's marching so you have nothing to worry about. Also what continues to be ignored is how victims are treated in court and the benefits a change would have for both male and female victims. Of course the trial brought up emotions for victims that can't be helped or curtailed.

The court decided she wasn't a victim.

What extra evidence do you have that proves she was?

sorry I didn't mention the complainant if you read my comment closely you would know that.
I used generalisations of how this case is being extrapulated into the bigger picture in terms of changing the law for victims of crime make and female so they are represented better in court and feel comfortable coming forward I linked to ivana bacik's article earlier in the thread. And yea the case would bring up emotions for victims that can't be helped.

cloudatlas

Did I say he did, perhaps read that one again as well.

FrancieBrady

cloudatlas wrote: »

sorry I didn't mention the complainant if you read my comment closely you would know that.
I used generalisations of how this case is being extrapulated into the bigger picture in terms of changing the law for victims of crime make and female so they are represented better in court and feel comfortable coming forward I linked to ivana bacik's article earlier in the thread. And yea the case would bring up emotions for victims that can't be helped.

So what is with the 'ibelieveher' nonsense then, to lead the way to this change?

Why undermine the verdict and sacrifice innocent men on this glorious altar if there is a 'bigger picture'?

Why not the pressure on those who can affect change and not on Ulster and Irish rugby?
How does ruining lives get change?

*the answer may require a long look in the mirror.

[Deleted User]

cloudatlas wrote: »

sorry I didn't mention the complainant if you read my comment closely you would know that.
I used generalisations of how this case is being extrapulated into the bigger picture in terms of changing the law for victims of crime make and female so they are represented better in court and feel comfortable coming forward I linked to ivana bacik's article earlier in the thread. And yea the case would bring up emotions for victims that can't be helped.

Sorry but it's not.

Here is a simple test, if the verdict was guilty, would there be protests? Would people be trying to make the courts fairer or better? Would Ruth Coppinger be arranging marches?

The obvious answer is no. This is a protest entirely aimed at the verdict. That attempts are being made to dress it in different clothes is fine, but it's very clear to neutral observers what the motivation was and is.

tretorn

What has really concerned people about this case was the naming of the accused men and the subsequent relentless media coverage hand on them.

Thanks to the discipline of playing rugby at the level they did they had the stamina, mental and physical to get through this, a lot of other young men would have been driven to take their own lives.

tritium

cloudatlas wrote: »

According to this thread this will have no impact and it was only a small group of feminazi's marching so you have nothing to worry about. Also what continues to be ignored is how victims are treated in court and the benefits a change would have for both male and female victims. Of course the trial brought up emotions for victims that can't be helped or curtailed.

The trial was in a foreign country!!

Any changes they make to their justice system are irrelevant to this jurisdiction. Many of the changes mooted would only move NI closer to the system here.

What right have the protesters to sacrifice innocent people on the altar of their cause?

Emotions helped or curtailed? A mob took to Twitter to excoriate Rory Best. #notmycaptain my arse, the public gave their view on that in their support for the team throughout the six nations. **** that shower of idiots, they don’t get to dodge accountability while preaching to everyone else about their responsibilities. Whether those who disagree with the verdict realize it or not the shower that used this trial to promote their agenda have actually done a huge amount of damage to both their credibility and to victims of rape.

Muahahaha

tritium wrote: »

The petition wasn’t exclusive to Ireland. I’d doubt that the 60 odd thousand signatures were exclusively Irish. Frankly I’m not that pushed about what some student in the US for example thinks about Irish rugby.

I wouldnt pay much heed to the petitions but the Claire Byrne poll last night was done using standard polling methodology across a representative sample of 1000 citizens. 55% didnt want to see them play for Ireland again with 26% for which is more than 2 to 1 against them playing.

Pat Kennys poll today was not a representative sample but also produced a virtually identical result, 2 to 1 against:

Mrsmum wrote: »

Newstalk did a poll on the Pat Kenny Show (radio) today asking do you want to see PJ & SO play for their province and country (not sure if it was now or ever).
Result: 66% no. 33% yes.

It is pretty clear that a majority of the public do not want them playing for Ireland again. The sponsors will be taking note of this, their bottom line is what matters here. I cant see a situation where the IRFU are going to sit down with Guinness, Vodafone, etc and try to convince them that the controversy around Jackson & Olding playing again will not negatively affect their brands. Marketing people will want nothing to do with associating themselves with speaking of women in the way in which they did, it is simply not good for business.

VinLieger

Muahahaha wrote: »

It is pretty clear that a majority of the public do not want them playing for Ireland again.

It really is not, 1 claire byrne poll is nowhere near enough date or evidence to make such a statement, anyone working in polling could tell you that.

If it was why would we bother with elections we could just do a ring around once every couple of years to find out who should be in government next.

tretorn

If thats the case then its Gilroy who has to go.
He posted the any sluts get ****ed remark. Olding answered precious secrets.
Did Jackson actually post anything derogatory at all.

facehugger99

Muahahaha wrote: »

It is pretty clear that a majority of the public do not want them playing for Ireland again. .

Amazing that there are that many femanazis in society isn't it.

I think if there's an echo chamber anywhere, the other lads seem to be the ones inside it.

facehugger99

VinLieger wrote: »

It really is not, 1 claire byrne poll is nowhere near enough date or evidence to make such a statement, anyone working in polling could tell you that.

How's that straw grasping working out for you?

carbuyer01

The jury have spoken, it's now finished, whether we like it or not, the verdict was not guilty.

BarryD2

Muahahaha wrote: »

It is pretty clear that a majority of the public do not want them playing for Ireland again.

That's not pretty clear at all I'd suggest. Fact is, that people who tend to phone in polls etc. tend to be invested one way or another and not representative at all of the populace at large. Interesting to hear that there is a counter movement underfoot to support the reinstatement of these players.