Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Options
1…8283858788…108

Comments

  • Options
    #2522
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?

    The sponsors are contractually entitled to pull out of a deal when their brand image is threatened.
    The sponsors feel that this is the case, most likely not over the verdict but over Jackson's attitude in the emerged chat logs and after the trial. Rugby clubs doing lots of work to come across as family friendly and inclusive, for men, women and children. Jackson's actions go very much against those values.

    Is it biased to hold something over the player's head that he said in a private chat? Yes, but this is the way our world works.
    If chats would publicly emerge with you saying something misogynistic, racist or hugely sexist I'm pretty sure your employer would have to say something about it too.

    I can't blame for companies, no matter what they stand for, not wanting to be associated with this.


  • Options
    #2523
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    ^^^ i wasn't questioning the sponsorship tbh, companies will go with whatever will avoid getting them bad press with the shrill twitter mob.

    i was questioning the assertion that someone found "not guilty" is in fact guilty.


  • Options
    #2524
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    ^^^ i wasn't questioning the sponsorship tbh, companies will go with whatever will avoid getting them bad press with the shrill twitter mob.

    i was questioning the assertion that someone found "not guilty" is in fact guilty.

    I think it’s more the case that as I mentioned above jurors may think “possibly guilty but this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Like imagine if someone robbed a bank but there was no CCTV, DNA evidence or witnesses. There’s only one guy in town who could have pulled it off and it WAS him. The cops can’t get a conviction because they don’t have sufficient evidence but the guy still did it. He’ll be found not guilty in court, which is the correct outcome in the absence of the required evidence, but he is still guilty of doing it.


  • Options
    #2525
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,445 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    From a juror’s perspective it can often be the case that they really think the accused is guilty but the prosecution failed to prove their case sufficiently as to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    So they are forced to acquit, because that’s what the law tells them to do, despite their own opinions.

    Thats not what was said though
    Not being convicted doesn't legally mean innocent.

    If you go to court and a verdict of not guilty is recorded then you are legally innocent.

    Now i suppose there have been cases where people have been found not guilty (diminished responsibility i believe is the term used)even when it's clear the person did commit a crime and the poster could have been talkingabout that scenario but that's not what was recorded on this trial.


  • Options
    #2526
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    I think it’s more the case that as I mentioned above jurors may think “possibly guilty but this has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    Like imagine if someone robbed a bank but there was no CCTV, DNA evidence or witnesses. There’s only one guy in town who could have pulled it off and it WAS him. The cops can’t get a conviction because they don’t have sufficient evidence but the guy still did it. He’ll be found not guilty in court, which is the correct outcome in the absence of the required evidence, but he is still guilty of doing it.

    You have already jumped to a conclusion here. Fecking hell, can you not see the absurdity of this? The guy is guilty in your mind BEFORE he goes to trial even.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2527
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    ^^^ i wasn't questioning the sponsorship tbh, companies will go with whatever will avoid getting them bad press with the shrill twitter mob.

    i was questioning the assertion that someone found "not guilty" is in fact guilty.

    Yeah fair enough, I don't understand why people aren't past this.
    The way I see it is that "innocent" until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the juridical system and unfortunately this is to accept even in really nasty cases. I doubt people would like to live in a system like Turkey for example has it where you get imprisoned and have to bring fundamental proof of your innocence.

    The jury found there isn't enough evidence to convict them, here we go, you're free of all charges, see you. This is fair enough, even though it probably leaves the girl and her surroundings behind feeling there was no justice done. If I'd be her parent I probably would be incredibly upset to be honest.
    But that's the way it works unfortunately.

    Having said that I don't feel particularly sorry for the aftermath for Jackson. He's a person in the public spotlight, he should have known better.

    I currently feel annoyed about something similar: my son plays Rugby in Sean O'Brien's home club. He's a big figure there doing a lot with the kids, he's an absolute gentleman with them and everyone else. Then he goes off, gets sh1tfaced, and pees a guy over his leg in a pub. He's a role model to so many kids. Rolemodels shouldn't be doing crap like that.


  • Options
    #2528
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    You have already jumped to a conclusion here. Fecking hell, can you not see the absurdity of this? The guy is guilty in your mind BEFORE he goes to trial even.

    It’s a hypothetical, calm down.


  • Options
    #2529
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,275 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    LirW wrote: »
    Yeah fair enough, I don't understand why people aren't past this.
    The way I see it is that "innocent" until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the juridical system and unfortunately this is to accept even in really nasty cases. I doubt people would like to live in a system like Turkey for example has it where you get imprisoned and have to bring fundamental proof of your innocence.

    The jury found there isn't enough evidence to convict them, here we go, you're free of all charges, see you. This is fair enough, even though it probably leaves the girl and her surroundings behind feeling there was no justice done. If I'd be her parent I probably would be incredibly upset to be honest.
    But that's the way it works unfortunately.

    Having said that I don't feel particularly sorry for the aftermath for Jackson. He's a person in the public spotlight, he should have known better.

    I currently feel annoyed about something similar: my son plays Rugby in Sean O'Brien's home club. He's a big figure there doing a lot with the kids, he's an absolute gentleman with them and everyone else. Then he goes off, gets sh1tfaced, and pees a guy over his leg in a pub. He's a role model to so many kids. Rolemodels shouldn't be doing crap like that.

    "innocent until proven guilty" is a trial presumption, nothing more. Yes they are innocent in the eyes of the law. That has no bearing on whether members of the public think they are absolute ****s and want nothing to do with them in any capacity, commercial or personal.


  • Options
    #2530
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    It’s a hypothetical, calm down.

    And even in a hypotetical you show the absurdity of it.
    You assumed guilt.


  • Options
    #2531
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    I suggest all you boys go out and bate into some stout after cashing in your mothers wedding ring first


    I wonder will we ever see Paddy Powers pull a stunt like this ****e


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2532
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No sex no rape, Paddy claimed there was no penetrative sex.
    Given an eye witness claiming she saw consensual sex but didn't see actual penetration the jury had plenty doubt as to what actually went on.
    You get that when folk are lying and I think folk were (someone had to be given the conflicting accounts of what happened).
    If Paddy claimed there was sex and it was consensual in his opinion the outcome would have been different.


  • Options
    #2533
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    LirW wrote: »
    Yeah fair enough, I don't understand why people aren't past this.
    The way I see it is that "innocent" until proven guilty is a fundamental pillar of the juridical system and unfortunately this is to accept even in really nasty cases. I doubt people would like to live in a system like Turkey for example has it where you get imprisoned and have to bring fundamental proof of your innocence.

    The jury found there isn't enough evidence to convict them, here we go, you're free of all charges, see you. This is fair enough, even though it probably leaves the girl and her surroundings behind feeling there was no justice done. If I'd be her parent I probably would be incredibly upset to be honest.
    But that's the way it works unfortunately.

    Having said that I don't feel particularly sorry for the aftermath for Jackson. He's a person in the public spotlight, he should have known better.

    I currently feel annoyed about something similar: my son plays Rugby in Sean O'Brien's home club. He's a big figure there doing a lot with the kids, he's an absolute gentleman with them and everyone else. Then he goes off, gets sh1tfaced, and pees a guy over his leg in a pub. He's a role model to so many kids. Rolemodels shouldn't be doing crap like that.

    he's also human. going for major surgery and missing the world cup and he gets sh1t faced and does something ridiculous. you could probably turn this into a good lesson for your son.


  • Options
    #2534
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2firijxQOo


  • Options
    #2535
    LirW
    Registered Users Posts: 4,825 ✭✭✭LirW


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    he's also human. going for major surgery and missing the world cup and he gets sh1t faced and does something ridiculous. you could probably turn this into a good lesson for your son.

    Of course he is and it's probably one of the less significant "offences". I'm pretty sure the kid will find that hilarious. But still, it's not necessary.


  • Options
    #2536
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    he's also human. going for major surgery and missing the world cup and he gets sh1t faced and does something ridiculous. you could probably turn this into a good lesson for your son.

    I don't see why successful sportspeople have to be role models for our children. Actors, musicians, tech wizards, whatever, they don't always have that hung around their necks. Why is sport so special?


  • Options
    #2537
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    so every person brought to trial and found not guilty still has a permanent shadow hanging over their good name forevermore?
    For some people that is the case, in other words they believe that there is no smoke without fire. It also tends to hang over people for an extremely long time in the context of this type of case.


  • Options
    #2538
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Machina wrote: »
    I don't see why successful sportspeople have to be role models for our children. Actors, musicians, tech wizards, whatever, they don't always have that hung around their necks. Why is sport so special?
    Because they represent a lot more than themselves, particularly the values that said sport promotes. Others can just be boxed off into personal issues.


  • Options
    #2539
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    is_that_so wrote: »
    For some people that is the case, in other words they believe that there is no smoke without fire. It also tends to hang over people for an extremely long time in the context of this type of case.

    About 20 years ago a guy in my area was convicted of rape and was sent to prison. His mother wouldn't let it rest and brought it to every tabloid in the country, the Joe Duffy type broadcasters, the works. The guards became involved, the case was looked at again and the complainant eventually broke down and said she lied about crucial evidence to secure a conviction because she wanted someone to pay for what she went through. The lad was released and tried to get on with his life but in my small little hometown everyone thinks he's a rapist. His life has been ruined. It's so unfair.


  • Options
    #2540
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,275 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    is_that_so wrote: »
    For some people that is the case, in other words they believe that there is no smoke without fire. It also tends to hang over people for an extremely long time in the context of this type of case.

    even if you believe he didnt rape her his behaviour in general towards women is absolutely appalling. that is reason enough to dislike him and want nothing to do with him.


  • Options
    #2541
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And even in a hypotetical you show the absurdity of it.
    You assumed guilt.

    You’re unable to follow a simple thought experiment. I give up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2542
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Machina wrote: »
    I don't see why successful sportspeople have to be role models for our children. Actors, musicians, tech wizards, whatever, they don't always have that hung around their necks. Why is sport so special?

    Exactly, if you are stupid enough to hold people (who are innately fallible creatures) up as 'role models' then you have no right to complain when they fail in whatever role you invented for them.

    A young fella joining a juvenile team doesn't get examined on his moral compass after all, he is examined on whether he can catch/kick/hold onto a fecking leather ball etc


  • Options
    #2543
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,307 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Everyone is forgetting as soon as the case was over it became about the what’s apps not the case, he was terrible for his input into the what’s app group, despite his input being the tamest. The other lads weren’t as well known so nobody cared about them but the 2 famous lads were hounded out.
    The twitter mob only cared about the famous lads never about the girl or the other lads.


  • Options
    #2544
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    even if you believe he didnt rape her his behaviour in general towards women is absolutely appalling. that is reason enough to dislike him and want nothing to do with him.

    That might be true of this case but there are other cases where no such chat logs etc. come to light, and the acquitted is still viewed as a wrongdoer by the "no smoke without fire" brigade. Idiots, the lot of 'em.


  • Options
    #2545
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,228 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    KikiLaRue wrote: »
    You’re unable to follow a simple thought experiment. I give up.

    I did. And it was very simple. You firstly assumed/ascribed guilt and then asked the question 'what is unreasonable about still thinking them guilty after a jury could not find any evidence that they were guilty'. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2546
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,275 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Machina wrote: »
    That might be true of this case but there are other cases where no such chat logs etc. come to light, and the acquitted is still viewed as a wrongdoer by the "no smoke without fire" brigade. Idiots, the lot of 'em.

    we are discussing one case in particular, nothing more. the thread title is quite clear.


  • Options
    #2547
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    LirW wrote: »
    .

    Is it biased to hold something over the player's head that he said in a private chat? Yes, but this is the way our

    What other people said is being held over paddy Jackson's head.

    There was **** all released of anything he said.


    On the brand image side, to give cash converters a worse image , someone would have to be murdered on the shop floor by an employee while the manager encouraged them.
    They are not in a position to be claiming any morality.

    I doubt any of the people whinging on Twitter would ever be customers of theirs anyway.


  • Options
    #2548
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    we are discussing one case in particular, nothing more. the thread title is quite clear.

    Any my post is the first digression then? Give me a break


  • Options
    #2549
    Machina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭Machina


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Because they represent a lot more than themselves, particularly the values that said sport promotes. Others can just be boxed off into personal issues.

    Just listen to yourself. The 'values of the sport'. Why does a successfull spokesperson have to embody those so-called values? Maradona was one of the greatest soccer players to ever walk onto a pitch. He wasn't the embodiment of soccer then and he certainly isn't now. He was selfish in a way that team player aren't supposed to be, he didn't have that particular 'value'. Kids looked up to him because he was a brilliant soccer player, not because he was a virtuous human being. It's your job to raise your kids.


  • Options
    #2550
    Fr Tod Umptious
    Registered Users Posts: 15,084 ✭✭✭✭Fr Tod Umptious


    And while many on this thread in AH decry the way a certain rugby player's career is hampered by a rape case the same people are quite happy to see the career of a certain entertainer ruined over nothing other than allegations.

    Maybe it's because rugby players are supposed to be cool lads lads, and the the certain entertainer is camp and annoying.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2551
    KikiLaRue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,283 ✭✭✭KikiLaRue


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I did. And it was very simple. You firstly assumed/ascribed guilt and then asked the question 'what is unreasonable about still thinking them guilty after a jury could not find any evidence that they were guilty'. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    No. I didn’t. If you read more carefully, the thought experiment was that we KNOW for a fact that X is guilty (not that we assume it).

    Although we know it, we don’t have the evidence we need to prove it in court.

    So X will be found not guilty even though he/she is guilty.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement