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 discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

pjohnson

screamer wrote: »

Every employer has certain standards set out for their employees as part of their contracts. Sportspeople are idolised by kids.... Did anyone seriously think this was going to end any other way?
I'm not surprised at the outcome and in fact I think the Irfu and Ulster rugby have responded in a very responsible way.

So you would find that doping is acceptable to be allowed by employees? Someone who was found guilty and recieved a ban is worthy of staying in employment? The IRFU happily kept a drugs cheat for kids to idolise so responsibility isn't really their thing.

For some reason that never gathered attention.

Silentcorner

pjohnson wrote: »

Never did I suggest more pay during that convo. I was saying they due to ability will have no problem negotiating contracts for themselves. You were actually the one suggesting they were loosing money and couldn't negotiate due to them being "damaged"

Yes you did.

You laughed at my suggestion that the lads were not in a strong bargaining position.

I never said they wouldn't find clubs (you still haven't produced a link to your claim I said otherwise)

You pointed to Andy Grey and Richard Keys as an example of people who have returned to work....which they did at a huge decrease in terms.

A 12 week media exposure for anything would damage anyone's reputation!!

AudreyHepburn

I’m not surprised at the decision but I am taken aback at the unwillingness to allow these lads to get on with their lives.

Do people understand that they were found not guilty? They’ve done nothing wrong. They’re not rapists. It’s that simple.

As regards the WhatsApp messages we cannot and should not police peoples private conversations nor punish those conversations.

Silentcorner

pjohnson wrote: »

So you would find that doping is acceptable to be allowed by employees? Someone who was found guilty and recieved a ban is worthy of staying in employment? The IRFU happily kept a drugs cheat for kids to idolise so responsibility isn't really their thing.

For some reason that never gathered attention.

What???? It was all over the media...

He wasn't the first overseas player to receive a ban and play for an Irish Provence but he was the first to make the news.

[Deleted User]

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This isn't even the point though, some people are calling for them to be fired specifically because of the language they used by text message - text messages which were intended entirely for an extremely small, private audience among close friends.

The idea that one's behaviour in such private communications should be legal for an employer to consider in terms of dismissal is appalling.

I suppose once that was submitted as evidence it was fair game though.

[Deleted User]

Ironic thing is a boi ad now popping up on my boards page. :rolleyes:

It can shag off :mad:

givyjoe

Calina wrote: »

I am sympathetic but the risk a man runs of being falsely accused of rape is significantly lower than the risk a woman runs of being raped. Quite simply it is a relatively lower risk by magnitudes. And women do not get much help in the courts for rape cased because in a he said she said the benefit of the doubt tends to flow to the innocent unless proven guilty defendent. And rape victims lived are often utterly destroyed and they get no closure and that is magnitudes more likely to happen than a false rape accusation is.

What?! The 2 lads who were found not guilty are now left with their lives in tatters.

Tell me how you've concluded this bizarre risk equation?

What 'help' should any alleged victim get, a lowering of the burden of proof?!

mfceiling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ironic thing is a boi ad now popping up on my boards page. :rolleyes:

It can shag off :mad:

As i posted in another thread BOI changed people's mortgages from tracker to fixed rate. Some people took their own lives after not being able to afford the new terms.
My workmate got a letter before christmas telling him he was getting 13 grand back from them for 7 years of overcharging. His sister is due back almost 30 grand!! (Marriage split up over the financial pressures).
His compensation for the 7 years of overcharging - €250.
Moral guardians indeed.

Calina

givyjoe wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

I am sympathetic but the risk a man runs of being falsely accused of rape is significantly lower than the risk a woman runs of being raped. Quite simply it is a relatively lower risk by magnitudes. And women do not get much help in the courts for rape cased because in a he said she said the benefit of the doubt tends to flow to the innocent unless proven guilty defendent. And rape victims lived are often utterly destroyed and they get no closure and that is magnitudes more likely to happen than a false rape accusation is.

What?! The 2 lads who were found not guilty are now left with their lives in tatters.

Tell me how you've concluded this bizarre risk equation?

What 'help' should any alleged victim get, a lowering of the burden of proof?!

Research has suggested that only about 30% of rapes ever get reported. And that of rapes reported, maybe 9% may turn out to be false.

Not all rape reports result in a prosecution case and of those very few result in a conviction very often because it winds up as two people's words.

I was not commenting on the Belfast case at all but to be frank it seems to me some men think they run a serious risk of being accused of rape. That risk is still far less than the risk women run of being raped.

Roger Hassenforder

goz83 wrote: »

Down south, the alleged victim and defendant has anonymity, but if the alleged victim agrees to be named, the defendant will also be named. The defendant has less rights than the alleged victim which flies in the face of equality and presumption of innocence.

Isnt that only if convicted though?

givyjoe

Calina wrote: »

Research has suggested that only about 30% of rapes ever get reported. And that of rapes reported, maybe 9% may turn out to be false.

Not all rape reports result in a prosecution case and of those very few result in a conviction very often because it winds up as two people's words.

I was not commenting on the Belfast case at all but to be frank it seems to me some men think they run a serious risk of being accused of rape. That risk is still far less than the risk women run of being raped.

Well the statistics aren't really relevant to individuals who find themselves in court accused of rape.

Calina

givyjoe wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

Research has suggested that only about 30% of rapes ever get reported. And that of rapes reported, maybe 9% may turn out to be false.

Not all rape reports result in a prosecution case and of those very few result in a conviction very often because it winds up as two people's words.

I was not commenting on the Belfast case at all but to be frank it seems to me some men think they run a serious risk of being accused of rape. That risk is still far less than the risk women run of being raped.

Well the statistics aren't really relevant to individuals who find themselves in court accused of rape.

Clearly. But given that I was not commenting on that, but the relative risk of two different events happening...

tritium

Calina wrote: »

Research has suggested that only about 30% of rapes ever get reported. And that of rapes reported, maybe 9% may turn out to be false.

Not all rape reports result in a prosecution case and of those very few result in a conviction very often because it winds up as two people's words.

I was not commenting on the Belfast case at all but to be frank it seems to me some men think they run a serious risk of being accused of rape. That risk is still far less than the risk women run of being raped.

Can you please link that research

I’m not doubting you by the way, those numbers are in the ballpark of what I’ve seen elsewhere. I’m just tired of manipulated nonsense numbers that have been posited repeatedly by some other posters so sourced figures are useful

tritium

Calina wrote: »

Clearly. But given that I was not commenting on that, but the relative risk of two different events happening...

There is however something unique to sexual crimes also though in that, similar to what I feel was the position in this case, it’s possible in for the two parties to genuinely believe very different truths.its one of the very few crimes where one party can see themselves as a victim and the other can see themselves as falsely accused at the same time

givyjoe

Calina wrote: »

Clearly. But given that I was not commenting on that, but the relative risk of two different events happening...

Your 9% is referring those 'proven' as false, which is usually due to the complainant admitting so. You've implied that it's worse to be raped than to be falsely accused is subjective and pointless. Would I rather be falsely accused, sent to prison and denied my liberty (and possibly also raped or worse) or suffer a rape myself...? Like I said, subjective and pointless

Both events are still small in terms of likelihood to happen.

Calina

tritium wrote: »

Calina wrote: »

Research has suggested that only about 30% of rapes ever get reported. And that of rapes reported, maybe 9% may turn out to be false.

Not all rape reports result in a prosecution case and of those very few result in a conviction very often because it winds up as two people's words.

I was not commenting on the Belfast case at all but to be frank it seems to me some men think they run a serious risk of being accused of rape. That risk is still far less than the risk women run of being raped.

Can you please link that research

I’m not doubting you by the way, those numbers are in the ballpark of what I’ve seen elsewhere. I’m just tired of manipulated nonsense numbers that have been posited repeatedly by some other posters so sourced figures are useful

No I can't because I didn't bookmark the research at the time and you agree the figures are broadly in line with what you have seen elsewhere. This is afterhours and frankly I tend not to give a toss given the general quality of posts in here. In fact 9% for false reports and 30% of total rapes reported are higher than some of of the corresponding numbers I have seen so I assume they vary by country and culture too.

Gunmonkey

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I’m not surprised at the decision but I am taken aback at the unwillingness to allow these lads to get on with their lives.

Do people understand that they were found not guilty? They’ve done nothing wrong. They’re not rapists. It’s that simple.

As regards the WhatsApp messages we cannot and should not police peoples private conversations nor punish those conversations.

Unfortunately a lot of people had made up their minds the second the charges were made, and when the ruling didnt find them guilty, they needed..."closure" or whatever you would call it....they view these guys as criminals and had to scrape something together to negatively impact them.

Would probably put money on a lot of those behind the #IBelieveHer nonsense are toasting themselves tonight for getting "justice" on these fellas!

Foxtrol

logicpro wrote: »

So was it a pay off or are we going to see a huge case before the labour courts ?

From their comments from the two not objecting it looks like a payoff.

Give it a week or two and it'll come out in one of the gossip rags (basically all the papers at this stage) and the outrage will begin again.

Lori2018

Sick to death of hearing about this case!

Foxtrol

Lori2018 wrote: »

Sick to death of hearing about this case!

You're probably in the wrong thread if you're looking to avoid it

blanch152

logicpro wrote: »

So was it a pay off or are we going to see a huge case before the labour courts ?

They would have a really good case for unfair dismissal so I assume there was a large pay-off.

From the point of view of Ulster and Ireland, this was a no-brainer. The cost of a payoff is far less than the cost of losing sponsorship, so I am sure the two lads were rewarded well.

I don't like the precedent that the mob can hound a person found not guilty of a crime out of their job. It is even more unsettling that big business in the form of sponsors can decide who keeps a job.

pgj2015

Delighted for the two boys, a lesson to anyone to have a bit of respect for another human being, fair play to ulster rugby.

sporina

yeah i have to say, regardless of what i think about the trial, I am happy with the decision made about their contracts.. they are no role models.. whether they are guilty or not, their messages about the girl/s were appalling - no respect - disgusting - i hope they realise that - they should be ashamed

[Deleted User]

pgj2015 wrote: »

Delighted for the two boys, a lesson to anyone to have a bit of respect for another human being, fair play to ulster rugby.

Problem is with many, not all but many, professional sports people is that they live in a bubble, from day one they are waited on hand and foot.

They don't get the opportunity to mature in the real world like you or I do.

So sending messages like the ones sent the day after what happened happened shows a lack of maturity, and it has cost them.

However I doubt that many other professional sports people will learn any lesson from it.

Lori2018

Oh sorry I'll go to another thread, to give my opinion on whats being discussed in this thread

FrancieBrady

Lori2018 wrote: »

Oh sorry I'll go to another thread, to give my opinion on whats being discussed in this thread

There are thousands of threads but you came into this one because you are sick of reading about this story and read it.

Hmmmm. Something not making sense for me anyhow.

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Olding and Jackson are also suing the BBC in what looks like an open and shut case. Probably won't even go to court.

Might force some action on anonymity in future cases.

Yeah they will be in for a fair few quid from the BBC for releasing their names before they were charged by the PSNI. The Cliff Richard V BBC case currently ongoing will be a good marker as it is remarkably similar, though I would say the damages in Cliff Richards case will be far higher if it can be proven that the BBC and police organised the media storm outside his house when it was getting searched for child porn.

sporina wrote: »

yeah i have to say, regardless of what i think about the trial, I am happy with the decision made about their contracts.. they are no role models.. whether they are guilty or not, their messages about the girl/s were appalling - no respect - disgusting - i hope they realise that - they should be ashamed

All in all I think it was the correct decision by the IRFU & Ulster Rugby. Had they carried on playing there would always be a shadow cast by their deeds.

NAGDEFI

facehugger99 wrote: »

Would it be within the remit of World Rugby Governing Body to step in and prevent other clubs offering them contracts, does anyone know?

They have brought the game in general into disrepute.

Would send a very strong message.

Just reading through earlier comments now. Ah no. No, no, no. The punishment has to stop somewhere, these young men can't be hounded to the ends of the earth.

Appledreams15

Foxtrol wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much as from their responses and the minor sanction on Gilroy this was by mutual agreement. The two either got paid off by Ulster/IRFU or decided they didn't want to deal with the mob and wanted out. Probably a win/win

That's not true. Paddy Jackson said in his latest statement that he did not want to leave.

Appledreams15

Paddy Jackson:
" I recognise that my behaviour has fallen far short of the values expected of me as an intentional player, a role model for the game of rugby and as a son and a brother. I am truly sorry. "