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.
Exclamation Marc wrote: » Bringing it back to to rugby. Just stumbled on a story of a very unusual offer from the Tonga national team that if Folau doesn't play for Australia for 3 years, they'd happily have him switch allegiance to represent them. Folau would have to sit out international rugby for three years before taking part in an Olympic sevens qualifying tournament, which in turn would allow him to compete in the 2023 Rugby World Cup. I really didn't think it was possible to switch international teams??http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/48619944
RobbieRuns wrote: » Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.
salmocab wrote: » This was discussed a good while back, if I remember right there is a loophole to do with playing 7s. Not sure if it’s still there.
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. 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.
irishbucsfan wrote: » Yeah it’s a bit of an odd one. If Folau uses it I wouldn’t be surprised to see it scrapped, it’s therr originally to help players get eligible for the Olympics iirc
I genuinely never knew you could. I remember discussing it with a friend over Isa and his one fated International appearance and how he was locked in.
Former Former wrote: » The other thing is that Diageo doesn't want to be associated with the sort of excessive drinking and laddish behaviour that went on that night, sort of undermines the "always drink responsibly" message...
salmocab wrote: » Lads Diageo don’t give a toss about PJ or the girl. They wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if social media hadn’t got up about it. The brand is now getting more attention without having to pay for it. They won’t sell more or less pints either way but they are gaining the free brand recognition.
swiwi_ wrote: » Yeah nah. Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean definitively innocent. That’s law 101 I would have thought.
Exclamation Marc wrote: » Any idea how big Diageo are in terms of sponsorship of LI? They're obviously a giant company but are they heavily sponsoring LI? You'd wonder if they will be able to replace them if they're a key sponsor.
Exclamation Marc wrote: » swiwi_ wrote: » Yeah nah. Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean definitively innocent. That’s law 101 I would have thought. It means legally innocent. That's "law 101".
molloyjh wrote: » Yes, but not actually innocent. Which is, of course, the point being made. As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not.
Exclamation Marc wrote: » molloyjh wrote: » Yes, but not actually innocent. Which is, of course, the point being made. As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not. Actually innocent of the crime he was charged with. Not innocent (or even guilty in a non-legal sense) of very poor behaviour which I've already said.
molloyjh wrote: » So nobody was ever found not guilty of something that they did? That's a.......naive idea.
AbusesToilets wrote: » And how many were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit?
irishbucsfan wrote: » So your point is that skepticism of the legal process is sometimes warranted?
mfceiling wrote: » Didn't hear their opinion on SOB p*ssing on a lads leg after being full of their produce. Didn't seem to annoy them rowing in behind Gareth Thomas who was tipping lads behind his wife's back. Didn't pull any funding after Marler made racist comments about Samson Lee. Seems a lad that wasn't found guilty of any charges by a court of law "doesn't fit in with their values". Obviously their tax dodging was grand. As was their war against Brewdog winning a competition that they weren't happy with.
Former Coach wrote: » If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank , it means that there isn’t enough evidence to convict him. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it!
stephen_n wrote: » Neither does it mean he did. It means there isn’t enough evidence alright, without which it’s impossible to make judgements and yet here we are.
