General Rugby Discussion II

troyzer wrote: »

He was found not guilty. This isn't the same as being found innocent.

I'm sorry but this is the sort of horseshît that muddies the waters. He was found innocent of the crimes he was accused of. Dislike him all you want, but he is an innocent man. His behaviour was extremely poor but this nonsense of second guessing a court of law and determining that he's not innocent is utter tripe.

All persons are innocent until proven guilty. That is a matter of fact.

mr_edge_to_you

It all merely reinforces the fact that "professional"rugby players are actually marketing professionals who play rugby at the weekend. Doesn't matter how good a player you are, if your name/image/reputation isn't squeeky clean there's no money to be made. Sponsors are bankrolling the professional game in Ireland. If you go onto the IRFU website there's a whole page of "official partners".

You can see it now in the run up to the world cup, every Irish player will be popping up giving interviews while wearing a cheap t-shirt with the logo for any old company who will give them a few quid. Jacob Stockdale was going around last week publicising Maxol. Jonny Sexton is in an add for chicken fillet rolls.

AbusesToilets

troyzer wrote: »

He was found not guilty. This isn't the same as being found innocent.

Of course he's allowed to continue with his life. He can stack shelves in Aldi. Nobody has an inalienable right to an extremely privileged and lucrative rugby career which is highly dependent on your value to sponsors who want positive brand association.

This is wildly disingenuous. They were found not guilty, which given the presumption of innocence, means they were, in fact, found innocent. I've seen this sentiment posted regularly of late and find it troubling. The legal standard exists for a reason, and it's attitudes like this that prevent people from being able to move on with their lives. A jury, that had access to every piece of information available, returned a unanimous not guilty judgement in ~2hrs. That should be the end of it.

Conviction by twitter is the standard seemingly. People are free to post hateful ****e and torment people because they "feel" strongly about an issue, nevermind the facts.

sydthebeat

what troubles me is that all this hassle seems to be over the contents of the text messages on the whatsapp group....

yet paddy jacksons sum total in that whats app chat regarding that night is 8 words "there was a lot of spit roast last night".
so his career is basically being destroyed and his name completely blackened due to those 8 words.

the texts from the others in that group were way way worse, but jackson is guilty by association.

joseywhales

Paddy's will surely pull out too then, there is a bad image around alcohol, groups of men and misogyny. I'm sure these alcohol producers spend vast amounts battling against many health, conservative values and feminist groups, to maintain their image. In fairness they are under no obligation to sponsor something and you have no power to object when you are basically begging for cash. I'm still excited to see if they can achieve next year.

sydthebeat wrote: »

what troubles me is that all this hassle seems to be over the contents of the text messages on the whatsapp group....

yet paddy jacksons sum total in that whats app chat regarding that night is 8 words "there was a lot of spit roast last night".
so his career is basically being destroyed and his name completely blackened due to those 8 words.

the texts from the others in that group were way way worse, but jackson is guilty by association.

The reality is that people don't believe he is innocent. The whatsapps are a means for people to justify their desire for the court of public opinion to carry out the sentence that the court of justice never did.

I personally would be very slow to take up those particular pitch forks, the jury heard and saw more than anyone on twitter or facebook or anywhere else and seemed to have their minds made up beyond doubt before the conclusion of the trial.

Couple of things I've read online, not sure if true - but apparently London Irish informed Diageo before the signing was completed and offered to meet with them - they declined.

Cash Converters by all accounts weren't continuing their sponsorship regardless and opportunistically virtue signalled for the positive PR. It would appear that this along with abuse on twitter and some petition somewhere were catalysts for Diageo's decision.

The whole thing is a very sad affair, but this stuff just makes it all a bit cheap to be honest.

Muligatawney wrote: »

I understand people who are coming at this from the "he deserves a second chance" perspective but I think the difference between Jackson and Olding is interesting regarding that.

Obviously Jackson was of a much higher profile but he showed next to no contrition when he was cleared in court and threatened going down the legal route against anyone who continued to accuse him if I remember correctly? Comparatively Olding expressed that he was sorry about what happened even if he didn't think he'd broken the law etc.

That is to say I think people deserve a second chance but they have to earn it by showing they understand why their first chance didn't go their way.

I mean, Jackson's response after the trial was actually far more of what you'd expect from an innocent man. If he believes he's falsely accused, his name has been dragged through the mud, career in tatters - would you not expect him to be quite angry and not in the mood to apologise for PR?

sydthebeat wrote: »

what troubles me is that all this hassle seems to be over the contents of the text messages on the whatsapp group....

yet paddy jacksons sum total in that whats app chat regarding that night is 8 words "there was a lot of spit roast last night".
so his career is basically being destroyed and his name completely blackened due to those 8 words.

the texts from the others in that group were way way worse, but jackson is guilty by association.

In fairness, it's not just about the WhatsApp message, it's a lot more complex than that.

Honestly, I think Jackson needs people around him giving him better advice. He should have stuck it out in France another year or two at least.

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, it's not just about the WhatsApp message, it's a lot more complex than that.

Honestly, I think Jackson needs people around him giving him better advice. He should have stuck it out in France another year or two at least.

Some people hate being away from home, Jackson at the end of the day is a young enough guy and he may not have enjoyed France. London Irish is going to be a lot more familiar. I know someone who moved to Germany for a job and moved back after 2 months, couldn't stick being away.

Another side to this which people ignore - whilst Jackson could well be completely guilty, he could also be completely innocent. The accusation could have been fabricated. I don't think that possibility registers with people much because he is guilty of poor behaviour despite the accusation. If this is the case, you can imagine what it's like being inside his head, it's going to be hard to make good PR decisions when you don't believe you have anything further to apologise for.

As I said, very sad situation for all involved and all the media coverage isn't going to be helping the alleged victim move on either.

sydthebeat

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, it's not just about the WhatsApp message, it's a lot more complex than that.
.

Is it?

What else has joe public open to then to have an opinion on?
They weren't in court, they didn't hear the testimony, they didn't see the body language etc. The jury who heard all the admissible evidence made their decision.

What is the other factors which add to the complexities?

The post trial statement? A perfectly understandable statement from a guy who believed he'd been falsely accused of rape and who had the hounds of the media after him..... And hindsight being 20/20 he was absolutely correct in what he said in the Statement.
The trial by media, social and established, was at odds to what was going on in the court.... And that public trail by media is what has followed him after being found not guilty. Its a insult to the judicial system to be honest.

Squidgy Black

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, it's not just about the WhatsApp message, it's a lot more complex than that.

Honestly, I think Jackson needs people around him giving him better advice. He should have stuck it out in France another year or two at least.

A lot of players have said it can be very hard to settle down in France as a foreigner, especially in smaller towns and villages. Chris Ashton mentioned it recently that him and his family just couldn't acclimate at all. That on top of Perpignan being an absolute disaster on the rugby field this season wouldn't have helped.

He more than likely saw the London Irish move as a way to move closer to home and back to a big city where he speaks the native language, as well as a rugby team putting a lot of investment in playing at the top level.

Olding arguably landed in a much better spot rugby wise with Brive playing really well as a team.

irishbucsfan

sydthebeat wrote: »

Is it?

What else has joe public open to then to have an opinion on?

I think Jackson became the more controversial of the two due to poor advice from solicitors and bad PR moves during and just after the trial. That's why he seems to be the more divisive figure of the two as far as I'm concerned.

You'd think Olding would be the more controversial given the charges and evidence against him being far worse, but he apologised, kept his head down and now we barely hear a thing about him. In a few years I reckon he has a chance of redeeming his public image if he keeps that up

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think Jackson became the more controversial of the two due to poor advice from solicitors and bad PR moves during and just after the trial. That's why he seems to be the more divisive figure of the two as far as I'm concerned.

I never heard anyone referring to it as the Olding trial.

It was the Jackson trial, he was the more recognisable player and more established international. He was also the person with the most serious accusations against him.

His actions post trial were relatively immaterial to who the media had focused on and would continue to focus on. It's possible that if he had been more apologetic that this would have helped, but given the incredible levels of anger and vitriol I think it's much more likely that any overt signs of contrition would have been picked up by the mob as an indication of guilt.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I never heard anyone referring to it as the Olding trial.

It was the Jackson trial, he was the more recognisable player and more established international. He was also the person with the most serious accusations against him.

His actions post trial were relatively immaterial to who the media had focused on and would continue to focus on. It's possible that if he had been more apologetic that this would have helped, but given the incredible levels of anger and vitriol I think it's much more likely that any overt signs of contrition would have been picked up by the mob as an indication of guilt.

He was being torn apart on social media and the #ibelieveher movement way before the trial was concluded, and well before he made any statement after the trial. Once that train started it wasn't going to stop because they'd latched on to their opinion of the events from what they read.

Squidgy Black wrote: »

A lot of players have said it can be very hard to settle down in France as a foreigner, especially in smaller towns and villages. Chris Ashton mentioned it recently that him and his family just couldn't acclimate at all. That on top of Perpignan being an absolute disaster on the rugby field this season wouldn't have helped.

He more than likely saw the London Irish move as a way to move closer to home and back to a big city where he speaks the native language, as well as a rugby team putting a lot of investment in playing at the top level.

Olding arguably landed in a much better spot rugby wise with Brive playing really well as a team.

Yeah, I'm sure it was a rough time for him in Perpignan and it doesn't seem to have worked on any level for him.
Perhaps he didn't help his own cause by making it clear very early on that he'd be triggering his exit clause. He was rumoured to be in discussions with other French clubs as early as November.

London Irish would definitely have been a very tempting proposition but, at best, the chances of him joining quietly and without this sort of attention were 50-50. I guess he figured it was a risk worth taking, would be very hard to guess what would be going on his head after the last couple of years.

Christy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This is wildly disingenuous. They were found not guilty, which given the presumption of innocence, means they were, in fact, found innocent. I've seen this sentiment posted regularly of late and find it troubling. The legal standard exists for a reason, and it's attitudes like this that prevent people from being able to move on with their lives. A jury, that had access to every piece of information available, returned a unanimous not guilty judgement in ~2hrs. That should be the end of it.

Conviction by twitter is the standard seemingly. People are free to post hateful ****e and torment people because they "feel" strongly about an issue, nevermind the facts.

It means nothing was found. Presumed innocent is not the same as found innocent. It just means we are not too hasty with legal punishments. Found innocent heavily implies she was found guilty of lying (realistically one or the other is true and we don't know which).

People have been judged by the community for ever. Just we are more connected than ever which means you can't just move a few towns over. It is not new to twitter which just increased the reach for better and for worse.

The legal standard exists for just that. The legal aspect. What happens outside of that, well people are allowed buy whatever brands they like for whatever reason. Brands are allowed a wide range avenues to get their name out. They are allowed associate their brands with others as they see fit.

More likable players can earn more than more talented ones simply by getting fans to buy jerseys/seats or outside sponsorship deals. Conversely unliked players suffer. In most sports. Not giving out about Jackson won't stop that.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I never heard anyone referring to it as the Olding trial.

It was the Jackson trial, he was the more recognisable player and more established international. He was also the person with the most serious accusations against him.

His actions post trial were relatively immaterial to who the media had focused on and would continue to focus on. It's possible that if he had been more apologetic that this would have helped, but given the incredible levels of anger and vitriol I think it's much more likely that any overt signs of contrition would have been picked up by the mob as an indication of guilt.

Media referred to it initially as the Jackson/Olding trial or even more commonly as the Belfast rape trial.

There was pretty intense coverage of both of them initially and Olding got a lot of media treatment. It just turned on Jackson full bore when the whole #suemepaddy thing kicked off and he became the villain.

Christy42 wrote: »

It means nothing was found. Presumed innocent is not the same as found innocent. It just means we are not too hasty with legal punishments. Found innocent heavily implies she was found guilty of lying (realistically one or the other is true and we don't know which).

I'm sorry but you haven't a dogs notion of how the legal system works. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If he or anyone was found not guilty, it means that they are found innocent. That is how the legal system works. You are either guilty or not guilty in a criminal trial. There is no third level on top of that which is 'found innocent' so please don't spout this nonsensical shïte.

The fact that you state that one or the other statements must be true shows how naive your opinion is. The truth of what happened is likely somewhere in the middle of the two statements. Its actually possible neither person was lying but their interpretations were different and the reality of their situations were not in line with their beliefs.

These people were found innocent of the crimes they were accused of. That is not up for debate. It does not mean she is a liar, it means that the jury do not believe the crime was committed and then men were found innocent.

Maybe they were guilty of poor behaviour but that's as far as it extends to.

irishbucsfan

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

He was found innocent of the crimes he was accused of. Dislike him all you want, but he is an innocent man.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I'm sorry but you haven't a dogs notion of how the legal system works. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If he or anyone was found not guilty, it means that they are found innocent. That is how the legal system works. You are either guilty or not guilty in a criminal trial. There is no third level on top of that which is 'found innocent' so please don't spout this nonsensical shïte.

Law is very hard

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Law is very hard

Yep. To some people it is unfortunately!

Not guilty means found innocent if you're trying to imply that I contradicted myself.

jr86

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You'd think Olding would be the more controversial given the charges and evidence against him being far worse

Olding faced one charge in the trial itself - one count of oral rape. Jackson was charged with the more serious vaginal rape and sexual assault.

Olding was initially charged with vaginal rape too but that was dropped before the trial, long before the whole saga entered wide public consciousness

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Yep. To some people it is unfortunately!

Not guilty means found innocent if you're trying to imply that I contradicted myself.

In fairness, the original post said that he was "found innocent", maybe it's semantics but that's not correct. He was found "not guilty" and is therefore entitled to the presumption of innocence. That is all we know for sure.

However, you said above that "it means that the jury do not believe the crime was committed" - that's every bit as wrong as anything the other guy said.

It means the jury might have thought that, or they might have been unsure, or they might have been fairly sure that the crime happened but not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, or anywhere in between. We have no idea.

Former Former wrote: »

In fairness, the original post said that he was "found innocent", maybe it's semantics but that's not correct. He was found "not guilty" and is therefore entitled to the presumption of innocence. That is all we know for sure.

However, you said above that "it means that the jury do not believe the crime was committed" - that's every bit as wrong as anything the other guy said.

It means the jury might have thought that, or they might have been unsure, or they might have been fairly sure that the crime happened but not sure beyond a reasonable doubt, or anywhere in between. We have no idea.

No, we do have an idea. It means the jury did not believe the crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt which is the burden of proof in a criminal trial.

If the jury believed he may have or probably committed an act (but crucially not to the standards required) , it is irrelevant in a court of law as far as a verdict is concerned if the standard has not been reached for a criminal conviction. A crime has legally not been committed if that standard is not met, it is that simple.

For the crime to be committed, the jury must believe that beyond reasonable doubt, the act (and in some cases intention depending on the charge) were there to meet the levels required. They were not. And therefore they do not believe the crime was committed.

There is no halfway house. What they might have thought is not sufficient in a criminal trial unless they can bring that thought to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Society relies upon courts of law to pass verdicts. This notion of 'well maybe this and maybe that' undermines the process. Not guilty. Crime not committed. End of story.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

No, we do have an idea. It means the jury did not believe the crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt which is the burden of proof in a criminal trial.

If the jury believed he may have or probably committed an act (but crucially not to the standards required) , it is irrelevant in a court of law as far as a verdict is concerned if the standard has not been reached for a criminal conviction. A crime has legally not been committed if that standard is not met, it is that simple.

For the crime to be committed, the jury must believe that beyond reasonable doubt, the act (and in some cases intention depending on the charge) were there to meet the levels required. They were not. And therefore they do not believe the crime was committed.

There is no halfway house. What they might have thought is not sufficient in a criminal trial unless they can bring that thought to 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

See, now you're more correct. Your first post just said "the jury do not believe the crime was committed". Now you've used "reasonable doubt" about fifty times so it's better but you're still reaching.

Considering you were giving the other guy such abuse about his knowledge of the law, you're still playing it fast and loose yourself. If a jury acquits no crime has been committed? Where did that come from? So if a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank, does that mean the bank was never robbed? If a guy is acquitted of murder, does that mean the victim is actually still alive?

Again, we have absolutely no idea what they really thought. All we know is that they thought there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything else is guesswork.

Former Former wrote: »

See, now you're more correct. Your first post just said "the jury do not believe the crime was committed". Now you've used "reasonable doubt" about fifty times so it's better but you're still reaching.

Considering you were giving the other guy such abuse about his knowledge of the law, you're still playing it fast and loose yourself. If a jury acquits no crime has been committed? Where did that come from? So if a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank, does that mean the bank was never robbed? If a guy is acquitted of murder, does that mean the victim is actually still alive?

Again, we have absolutely no idea what they really thought. All we know is that they thought there wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Everything else is guesswork.

I'm fully legally trained so I know exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe my mistake was speaking about it colloquially as I'm not writing formal emails from work and honestly, didn't think I needed to.

And jesus christ, your questions? Are you high or something?

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank, it means he didn't rob the bank. If a guy is acquitted of murder, it means he didn't murder the victim. In this case, the men did not sexually assault the woman (or whatever the exact charge was per plaintiff).

If a jury acquits, it means that no crime was committed by the person accused and put on trial, that's fairly indicative by using the old common sense. If someone else is charged for it, that's for another trial (such as a murder or theft as you oddly referenced). In the case of a bank being robbed, if it was robbed it remains robbed. It just means the person on trial did not do it - crime not committed (by them - as I seem to need to spell it out).

Jesus, do you read the utter nonsense that you're writing.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I'm fully legally trained so I know exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe my mistake was speaking about it colloquially as I'm not writing formal emails from work and honestly, didn't think I needed to.

And jesus christ, your questions? Are you high or something?

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank, it means he didn't rob the bank. If a guy is acquitted of murder, it means he didn't murder the victim.

If a jury acquits, it means that no crime was committed by the person accused and put on trial, that's fairly indicative by using the old common sense. Jesus, do you read the utter nonsense that you're writing.

Maybe you know what you're talking about but you're absolutely dreadful at explaining it. You were the one giving people stick for not understanding the law so it would have been better if you hadn't been so muddled yourself.

Again.

What we know:
The jury found them not guilty.
The jury did not believe the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
They are entitled to the full presumption of innocence.

What else we know:
Nothing.

As you would say yourself, end of.

Former Former wrote: »

Ah here. There's no way you're a lawyer. Maybe you know what you're talking about but you're absolutely dreadful at explaining it. You were the one giving people stick for not understanding the law so it would have been better if you hadn't been so muddled yourself.

Again.

What we know:
The jury found them not guilty.
The jury did not believe the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
They are entitled to the full presumption of innocence.

What else we know:
Nothing.

As you would say yourself, end of.

Yes, I am actually fully trained. And I know what I'm talking about. I don't really need to justify myself or my career (which has been going well, thankfully) to you or anyone. If I was in anyway muddled, I wouldn't have the job I have. And I don't appreciate the attack on my credibility.

At the end of the day, law is black and white. Opinion is coloured and everyone is entitled to their opinion about their behaviour and personalities, positively or negatively. But factually, these men are innocent and it bothers me when people infer that they're 'sort of' innocent of a crime because that level of innocence or guilt doesn't exist.

I'm going to bail out of this conversation as it's circular and veering way off rugby and is going more towards an AH post.

joseywhales

Wait did you not bring up your career as an appeal to authority, it's definitely open game if you use it to add weight to your argument, not that I care who is right, diageo could pull sponsorship as a result of flicking a coin, they don't have to justify anything.

joseywhales wrote: »

Wait did you not bring up your career as an appeal to authority, it's definitely open game if you use it to add weight to your argument, not that I care who is right, diageo could pull sponsorship as a result of flicking a coin, they don't have to justify anything.

I mentioned it as I was accused of not knowing what I was talking about like I was freewheeling or making it up as I went along and it bothered me, maybe too much in hindsight and it was a relevant defence to actually knowing what I'm talking about. It's not really open game if it's factual