Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

SnazzyPig · 21-07-2018 11:27AM

mfceiling wrote: »

There is indeed a woman's orange order. Behind the scenes of the men's order is an army of women keeping it active....organising fundraising, making tea and sandwiches for the parades, book keeping, cleaning and maintaining the orange halls, charity collections, working with the churches, administration etc.
Women are actually not as downtrodden in the north as you might actually believe.

So they're less than children, neither seen or heard.

CatFromHue · 21-07-2018 12:40PM

In the context of the two lads being found not guilty than I don't see why people can have too much problem with what Willie John said

Willie John McBride, President of the Official Supporters Club of Ulster Rugby, said this morning that while he does not know the men at all, he felt that it was time they were allowed back to the game, having been found not guilty.

He said: "As far as I'm concerned, these young men have learned their lesson. It's time they got back to doing what they do best and that is playing rugby."

The former Ireland international told Sean O'Rourke that, while he does not understand WhatsApp, he found it very sad and silly that they got involved in this.

"There's no question about it', Mr McBride said "that these WhatsApp messages brought the game into disrepute".

When put to Mr McBride the amount of alcohol taken by Olding, he laughed saying "he's some drinker", before adding that he did not believe that that was the amount he had that night, even though that was the evidence given.

Mr McBride, referring to past Lions Tour controversies that were not taken as seriously or given the same amount of exposure, then said: "Alcohol is one of the biggest problems in all of these things."

He also said that Ulster Rugby should not have to apologise for the behaviour of the two men, but they should be reprimanded.

He said: "You can't be held responsible for their conduct in off-time, if you want to put it that way.

However, he said that they both conducted themselves very well while on camera every day throughout the trial.

He said: "They carried themselves very well through that, hopefully people will see that these are not bad young men."

Really only the last quote can be debatable but again the lads were found not guilty so I dunno what to say here.

Willie got some stick for the above but I thought he was relatively fair.

dense · 21-07-2018 05:44PM

CatFromHue wrote: »

In the context of the two lads being found not guilty than I don't see why people can have too much problem with what Willie John said

Really only the last quote can be debatable but again the lads were found not guilty so I dunno what to say here.

Willie got some stick for the above but I thought he was relatively fair.

What would be in their work contract about their out of work behaviour?

Have other (sports or otherwise) people been sacked after being involved in criminal cases after being found not guilty?

salmocab · 21-07-2018 05:46PM

dense wrote: »

What would be in their work contract about their out of work behaviour?

Have other (sports or otherwise) people been sacked after being involved in criminal cases after being found not guilty?

there will be a clause about bringing game into disrepute etc, fairly vague and open I'd imagine. Not sure fired is the right word as they would have been paid off to leave.

Roger Hassenforder · 21-07-2018 05:53PM

jm08 wrote: »

Edit: bearing in mind the 3 girls were referred to as 'Belfast Sluts', the lads were fairly quick to jump to that conclusion. I wonder how they came to that conclusion?

The same way the complainant referred to their behaviour as "slutty"?

dense · 21-07-2018 06:07PM

salmocab wrote: »

there will be a clause about bringing game into disrepute etc, fairly vague and open I'd imagine. Not sure fired is the right word as they would have been paid off to leave.

Yes, the disrepute one, which is subjective.

UR seems to have been bolting the door after the horse by bringing in some "educational programs" now, which the accused could not have benefitted from or failed to observe.

upandcumming · 22-07-2018 10:31AM

CatFromHue wrote: »

In the context of the two lads being found not guilty than I don't see why people can have too much problem with what Willie John said

Really only the last quote can be debatable but again the lads were found not guilty so I dunno what to say here.

Willie got some stick for the above but I thought he was relatively fair.

Not a hope did they bring the game into disrepute.

FrancieBrady · 22-07-2018 10:35AM

upandcumming wrote: »

Not a hope did they bring the game into disrepute.

Basically, Willie John had calmed down and looked at the situation in a fair way.

the same way other teams did later and hired these guys.

The twitterati, as predicted, got bored and wandered off to get offended about something else.

tritium · 22-07-2018 11:26AM

jm08 wrote: »

How do you know she sought him out? Are you PJ or a friend of his or are you assuming that she sought him out.

NI is hardly to the fore when it comes to human rights, respect for women etc. Women know their place up there.

This is the Northern Ireland where, if the two women leaders of the two biggest political parties could get their fingers out they’d have a female foirst and deputy first minister. They can’t so the female prime minister in London has to run the show.

Yeah misogyny at its worst, they really know their place

jm08 · 23-07-2018 03:21PM

tritium wrote: »

This is the Northern Ireland where, if the two women leaders of the two biggest political parties could get their fingers out they’d have a female foirst and deputy first minister. They can’t so the female prime minister in London has to run the show.

Yeah misogyny at its worst, they really know their place

First of all, its the 10 DUP MPs in Westminster (in the big boys playground when it comes to Unionist politics) who runs the DUP. The breakdown is 9 males and 1 female MP.

Secondly, Arlene was unable to get her party to agree to an Irish Language Act and various other issues such as legislation for same sex marriage which sort of indicates who leads the DUP.

jm08 · 23-07-2018 03:29PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Basically, Willie John had calmed down and looked at the situation in a fair way.

the same way other teams did later and hired these guys.

The twitterati, as predicted, got bored and wandered off to get offended about something else.

In your opinion.

Not sure why you are stating the rest - you think that being hired by French teams is some sort of an achievement that will spite the twitterati

Edit: Support worth having would have been from IRUPA. They stayed well out of it and have said that they will take on a role to educate their members on 'respect' and 'consent'.

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 03:31PM

jm08 wrote: »

In your opinion.

Not sure why you are stating the rest - you think that being hired by French teams is some sort of an achievement that will spite the twitterati

No. The outraged Twitterati, as predicted, wandered off and got upset about something else.

Silentcorner · 23-07-2018 03:43PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. The outraged Twitterati, as predicted, wandered off and got upset about something else.

Well any muppet could have predicted that would happen...twitter outrage is fleeting and one dimensional...

But you are kidding yourself if you think that the only people that were outraged were the twitteratti...

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 03:49PM

Silentcorner wrote: »

Well any muppet could have predicted that would happen...twitter outrage is fleeting and one dimensional...

But you are kidding yourself if you think that the only people that were outraged were the twitteratti...

Ok, the ones ringing Joe as well.

There was the implied threat on here that these guys would never get their lives back because of the 'outrage'.

Well you know what, they did. And the outrage has dissipated just likem I and others said it would. :rolleyes:

dense · 23-07-2018 03:55PM

Instead of raking over the coals of this case, does anyone see anything wrong with trying to prevent something like it happening again?

To prevent it though, there will have to be consent forms carried by individuals.

Individuals with alcohol or other potentially mind altering substances taken (as a yardstick we could use the drink and drug driving rules) of course cannot be relied upon to have the wherewithal to seek or grant consent.

So, sobriety is paramount.
As it is when operating heavy machinery, angle grinders etc.

Next comes the interval checks in order to ascertain whether consent remains in place.

This could be a 15 minute interval.
Best make it 5 minutes, even though a lot can happen in that time!!

At each interval, any assumption that consent is still in place will have to be verified and recorded on the consent form, and signed by both, or all parties to permit the festivities to continue, or stop.

The above point (bar maintaining a record of the continued consent) was suggested by a young lady on a TV3 program in the aftermath of the case.

Seems like an idea, but unless there is a record of both parties signing and dating these things, confusion at a later date is possible.

And both parties involved must have everything signed on both their forms, as a sign of their mutual respect for the other.

Keeping the forms in a safe place will obviously be necessary, should they need to be checked by the authorities.

You may think I'm taking the pi§§, but I'm not.

Spoken words alone are no use.
They are open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding.
Alcohol and drugs are out.

Words spoken with sobriety and judgement in question are of no use, the same as any other contract, it needs to be in writing.

Written records for both parties are the only way to better that situation.

I see no other way of fulfilling and recording the fulfilment of the requirement to seek and be granted mutual consent, and by parties who are in a sober capacity to legitimately do so.

I'm thinking of investing in human-like sex robots, because that scenario just isn't worth the hassle.

BattleCorp · 23-07-2018 04:02PM

upandcumming wrote: »

Not a hope did they bring the game into disrepute.

Surely they brought themselves into disrepute, but not the game.

jm08 · 23-07-2018 04:27PM

dense wrote: »

Instead of raking over the coals of this case, does anyone see anything wrong with trying to prevent something like it happening again?

To prevent it though, there will have to be consent forms carried by individuals.

The Swedes are tackling the issue of consent it:

https://www.thelocal.se/20180630/swedens-new-sexual-consent-law-comes-into-effect

jm08 · 23-07-2018 04:28PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

Surely they brought themselves into disrepute, but not the game.

Ulster Rugby & IRFU were dragged into it by association. The claimant had sent a text about ''going up against Ulster Rugby''.

jm08 · 23-07-2018 04:31PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No. The outraged Twitterati, as predicted, wandered off and got upset about something else.

I don't think this issue is over (about consent). IRFU is going to undertake an education programme for starters. If both lads were still playing in Ireland, I imagine the twitterati might not have gone away.

BattleCorp · 23-07-2018 04:31PM

jm08 wrote: »

Ulster Rugby & IRFU were dragged into it by association. The claimant had sent a text about ''going up against Ulster Rugby''.

But that was the claimant, not the two lads was it not?

DavidLyons_ · 23-07-2018 04:40PM

jm08 wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Surely they brought themselves into disrepute, but not the game.

Ulster Rugby & IRFU were dragged into it by association. The claimant had sent a text about ''going up against Ulster Rugby''.

So she brought them into it.

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 04:54PM

jm08 wrote: »

I don't think this issue is over (about consent). IRFU is going to undertake an education programme for starters. If both lads were still playing in Ireland, I imagine the twitterati might not have gone away.

:D Even the demands that they never play again on here have disappeared.

There was an issue about consent long before this trial. There has always been one and there likely will always be one.

As usual, in this case, the braying mob muddied the waters about it as they mixed up their own prudishness/self righteous moral objections with actually caring for real people.

The 'real' people involved in this have gotten on with getting their normal lives back. Maybe you should open a thread that is 'actually' about consent and leave them alone?

jm08 · 23-07-2018 05:05PM

BattleCorp wrote: »

But that was the claimant, not the two lads was it not?

Yes. The Court System in Northern Ireland was the reason we all knew about the association.

jm08 · 23-07-2018 05:14PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

:D Even the demands that they never play again on here have disappeared.

You think it would be safe for them to come back now do you? The 'braying mob' wouldn't start up again?

There was an issue about consent long before this trial. There has always been one and there likely will always be one.

So, in your opinion, its a waste of time to try and do something about it. Who cares if they consent or not. The Courts will never be able to sort out if there was or was't.

As usual, in this case, the braying mob muddied the waters about it as they mixed up their own prudishness/self righteous moral objections with actually caring for real people.

PJ did a fair bit of braying himself threatening to sue the world and its wife.

The 'real' people involved in this have gotten on with getting their normal lives back. Maybe you should open a thread that is 'actually' about consent and leave them alone?

Delighted for them, especially the woman involved. She is a 'real' person too.

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 05:20PM

jm08 wrote: »

You think it would be safe for them to come back now do you? The 'braying mob' wouldn't start up again?

Time passes, the guys aren't huge threats to womankind as was suggested. They could come back if they wished, there would certainly be less noise and less justification for it.

So, in your opinion, its a waste of time to try and do something about it. Who cares if they consent or not. The Courts will never be able to sort out if there was or was't.

What consenting adults got up to was none of my business. And neither were the details when the girl claimed she was raped. That should be for a jury to deal with.
As we seen, when the public get involved, it all too quickly becomes about moral judgement.

PJ did a fair bit of braying himself threatening to sue the world and its wife.

As I would have done if I believed I was wrongly charged and destroyed.

Delighted for them, especially the woman involved. She is a 'real' person too.

You cared more about public morality than you did about the people involved in fairness.

jm08 · 23-07-2018 06:08PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Time passes, the guys aren't huge threats to womankind as was suggested. They could come back if they wished, there would certainly be less noise and less justification for it.

What consenting adults got up to was none of my business. And neither were the details when the girl claimed she was raped. That should be for a jury to deal with.
As we seen, when the public get involved, it all too quickly becomes about moral judgement.

As I would have done if I believed I was wrongly charged and destroyed.

FFS, it was the WhatsApp stuff that was the nail in the coffin on their Ireland careers. PJ's threats to sue everyone in sight didn't help either.

You cared more about public morality than you did about the people involved in fairness.

Their poor attitude to women was what I found offensive.

FrancieBrady · 23-07-2018 08:04PM

jm08 wrote: »

FFS, it was the WhatsApp stuff that was the nail in the coffin on their Ireland careers. PJ's threats to sue everyone in sight didn't help either.

Their poor attitude to women was what I found offensive.

When you finally admit to yourself that it is their attitude to some women or one woman is all that we know about them, then you might be able to avoid doing the outrage thing before you consider there are real people involved.
And so what if you are offended by what some young lads say about a night out they clearly enjoyed.

upandcumming · 24-07-2018 07:32PM

jm08 wrote: »

FFS, it was the WhatsApp stuff that was the nail in the coffin on their Ireland careers. PJ's threats to sue everyone in sight didn't help either.

Their poor attitude to women was what I found offensive.

Some women.

Outlaw Pete · 26-11-2018 11:24PM

RTE Radio has made a documentary/podcast about the trial:

Documentary On One: Notes From A Belfast Rape Trial is a difficult listen.

You are put in the position of the jury - you have to listen to some quite graphic testimony but you also get a sense of why that jury decided - much to the anger of protestors - that they could not say, beyond reasonable doubt, that rape had taken place in Paddy Jackson’s house on that June night in 2016.

The podcast features interviews with the two leading barristers in the case - Toby Hedworth QC for the Prosecution and Brendan Kelly QC for Paddy Jackson. Both barristers discuss their opposing positions in the case.

https://www.rte.ie/culture/2018/1123/1012959-notes-on-a-belfast-rape-trial-documentary-on-one/

Muahahaha · 14-12-2018 06:24PM

Jackson and Olding left on the hook for their legal costs in Belfast today. Reports saying that it could be around £500,000 for Jackson and £250,000 for Olding. On top of that they also have to pay the legal costs of the BBC for their failed civil action for breach of privacy, that is a six figure sum too.

The judge didnt seem impressed with Jackson as he refused to reveal his current finaancial situation as part of his application for legal costs. Without him being transparent about his finances the judge didnt seem likely to put his legal bill back on the taxpayer. They have an appeal to the decision to come but it doesnt look good for them.

Im conflicted on this, especially as they were found not guilty. Im not sure of the free legal aid mechanisms in the north but presume they could have availed of it as part of a criminal trial? If so and they decided to go with different lawyers than the free legal aid scheme then I suppose thats a risk they took and its not worked out. But if they werent entitled to free legal aid then it seems harsh to fix them with the costs of a trial in which they were found not guilty.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments