Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

Former Former · 16-04-2018 01:23PM

awec wrote: »

In what way?

What Teo allegedly did is ok but what PJ + SO allegedly did is not?

Ben Te'o was never arrested, was never charged and was never brought to trial. The complainant withdrew the complaint.

An internal NRL review found that Te'o had no case to answer on their code of conduct (or whatever it is) either.

Nothing that Ben Te'o himself admitted to was highly questionable behaviour or likely to harm the reputation of his club. There wasn't (as far as I'm aware), a slew of text messages that would have compounded such damage.

Is that enough? I feel that's enough.

bilston · 16-04-2018 01:24PM

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Bilston

Think we might get a few good additions to the Academy from school leavers this year as well.

Houston, Sexton and Moore? Unlikely they are going to feature in the senior team next season though.

I know there is definitely a decent bunch of players coming through but even two or three injuries to our backs next season, especially with Stockdale going to be away for large parts, and we could be struggling a bit.

Agreed.

Section has another year at school.

A good test of our depth is to pick 2 backlines and see how strong the 2nd backline is...

9 Cooney
10 McPhillips
11 Stockdale
12 McCloskey
13 Cave
14 Gilroy
15 Payne

9 Shanahan
10 Nelson
11 Lyttle
12 Marshall
13 Addison
14 Trimble
15 Ludik

That's best case scenario regarding Payne.

I suppose if we sign a 10 then Nelson can focus on the back 3 which will be better for him to be honest. I'd like another centre/wing. And if we lose Payne then we will definitely need a utility back.

So potentially 3 backs need to be signed.

Edit - I'd probably want another scrum half as well...

bilston · 16-04-2018 01:26PM

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

I would like to see Trimble again. I don't know if he has fallen off a cliff or not as haven't seen him play.

Cave didn't play for ages but when he did he played well.

Fair point on Trimble, but he doesn't seem to be getting a look in at all. Maybe Peel doesn't fancy him.

launish116 · 16-04-2018 01:26PM

Strange thought can we actually discuss rugby from now. What is done is done sadly! Try find something to look forward to....

awec · 16-04-2018 01:28PM

There was a recommendation not to bring this case to trial either. Had it not, none of the other things would have come out.

errlloyd · 16-04-2018 01:29PM

awec wrote: »

There was a recommendation not to bring this case to trial either. Had it not, none of the other things would have come out.

I've heard this, but never seen any evidence of it?

Hands Like Flippers · 16-04-2018 01:30PM

launish116 wrote: »

Strange thought can we actually discuss rugby from now. What is done is done sadly! Try find something to look forward to....

It is incredibly hard to discuss the team at the mo. I replied and had to scroll 4 pages to find it past the other stuff. Think the it should have it's own thread (not that I to debate that thanks).

Personally I would prefer some rebuilding years.

Can we not get rid of players who are bring paid but not played (ie, tried but found wanting?) Is Brett Heron still on the books?

Synode · 16-04-2018 01:31PM

errlloyd wrote: »

I've heard this, but never seen any evidence of it?

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

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

16-04-2018 01:33PM

awec every post seems to consist of you shifting the goalposts yet again. Are you interested in discussing or are you interested in being right, because the constant twisting and manipulation of other people's arguments seems disingenuous at best.

errlloyd · 16-04-2018 01:35PM

Synode wrote: »

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

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Synode · 16-04-2018 01:37PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Who knows, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it's true. A jury taking less than 4 hours to decide a case that took 9 weeks is pretty damning in my opinion. I'm sure we'll find out in time if there was incompetence involved in the decision to prosecute

Paul Smeenus · 16-04-2018 01:43PM

errlloyd wrote: »

awec wrote: »

In what way?

What Teo allegedly did is ok but what PJ + SO allegedly did is not?

Eh assault is a lesser crime, and there wasn't even enough evidence to charge him, nevermind prosecute him. He reported the incident himself the morning after.

And even, despite all that, I still wouldn't have taken him if I'd know and if it was my choice.

That doesn't at mean he didn't do it. If this trial has taught us anything, it's that.

16-04-2018 01:45PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Northern Ireland's rape/sexual offences prosecution rates lag massively behind the rest of the UK, and conviction rates lag even further behind.

This has been raised in the NI Assembly e.g. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2016-10-17.6.16

In England and Wales there has been a concerted effort to increase prosecution (and consequently conviction) rates on VAWG offences. If there was a recommendation of not to prosecute by the PSNI, I wouldn't take that as evidence of anything. The PSNI seem to make a habit of recommending no prosecution, with the PPSNI frequently not bothering to prosecute even if they received a recommendation to prosecute from the PSNI

Paul Smeenus · 16-04-2018 01:45PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Synode wrote: »

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

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

You couldn't, because she is still guaranteed anonymity. Not saying for a second that she might have that history, but if she did, her continued need to not be identified would prevent us hearing about it.

awec · 16-04-2018 01:46PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Are the restrictions on reporting around the complainant lifted?

prawnsambo · 16-04-2018 01:47PM

Synode wrote: »

Who knows, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it's true. A jury taking less than 4 hours to decide a case that took 9 weeks is pretty damning in my opinion. I'm sure we'll find out in time if there was incompetence involved in the decision to prosecute

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

errlloyd · 16-04-2018 01:48PM

awec wrote: »

Are the restrictions on reporting around the complainant lifted?

They still can't report her name, but they can report anything that happened during Voir Dire. IE, all those days when we were told the Jury wasn't required because legal technicalities were being discussed.

OldRio · 16-04-2018 01:51PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

Or it might have been obvious to the jury, who heard all the evidence, that they were not guilty.

Buer · 16-04-2018 01:52PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

The foreperson publicly commented on this (and got themselves in serious trouble).

damianmcr · 16-04-2018 01:55PM

With Paddy asking questions of the PPS more info may come to light.

I'm 99% sure the PPS didn't want to charge. No one in London did and then it landed on the current prosecution barrister desk who took it. So it wasn't until the 3rd time. How did it get so far?

Want my opinion. It was pushed through by someone for the sole purpose to destroy Paddy and Stuart.

16-04-2018 01:59PM

damianmcr wrote: »

It was pushed through by someone for the sole purpose to destroy Paddy and Stuart.

Let's play Cluedo, who had the motive, means and opportunity?

damianmcr · 16-04-2018 02:01PM

I dont know sorry.

Please note my opinion does not mean I think they are guilty or not just that something fishy happened with this getting to court.

prawnsambo · 16-04-2018 02:03PM

OldRio wrote: »

Or it might have been obvious to the jury, who heard all the evidence, that they were not guilty.

Well since that was the gist of the post I replied to, I'm not sure why you're repeating it. I clearly read that post.

16-04-2018 02:05PM

damianmcr wrote: »

With Paddy asking questions of the PPS more info may come to light.

I'm 99% sure the PPS didn't want to charge. No one in London did and then it landed on the current prosecution barrister desk who took it. So it wasn't until the 3rd time. How did it get so far?

Want my opinion. It was pushed through by someone for the sole purpose to destroy Paddy and Stuart.

The barrister doesn't make a decision to prosecute or not, they try the case but the decision is made elsewhere. It was the PPS. I don't know what London has to do with it.

Synode · 16-04-2018 02:05PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

No, but it's pretty indicative

16-04-2018 02:06PM

Synode wrote: »

No, but it's pretty indicative

Not really, or else it's indicative of something you aren't implying. If you had made 7 weeks worth of notes and wanted to quickly review them before confirming a gut instinct decision, would it take you 4 hours to review+find a quick consensus?

bilston · 16-04-2018 02:11PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Synode wrote: »

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

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

The complainants name will
never be made public (although I'm sure we all know it) irrespective of reporting restrictions so you will never publicly hear about any alleged history.

Synode · 16-04-2018 02:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really. If you had made 7 weeks worth of notes and wanted to quickly review them before confirming a gut instinct decision, would it take you 4 hours to review+find a quick consensus?

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

My brother in law was on a murder jury (in Dublin) that took about the same length as this trial. They couldn't get a unanimous decision after 3 days deliberating. The case had to be re-tried.

16-04-2018 02:14PM

Synode wrote: »

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

Your implication is that because it was decided so quickly, the evidence of the defendants innocence was overwhelmingly clear, right?

My question remains, how is a deliberation time so short that no juror could have even cursorily attempted to review evidence, indicative of anything other than that the jurors didn't review the two cases put toward them before making a decision?

It's called deliberation for a reason, and it's intended to be deliberation.

16-04-2018 02:14PM

Synode wrote: »

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

My brother in law was on a murder jury (in Dublin) that took about the same length as this trial. They couldn't get a unanimous decision after 3 days deliberating. The case had to be re-tried.

I don't really think this demonstrates anything. The if the trial was shorter do you think they'd have reached a verdict?

Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

Comments