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
12467…108

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Uncharted
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭Uncharted


    Slightly off topic,apologies to the debating association.

    FWIW I truly look forward to seeing Paddy Jackson lining out again in the white of Ulster and the green of Ireland.
    I'm sure he rightfully feels gutted at the loss of a grand slam medal.
    Getting his career back on track will be some small recompense.

    Unfortunately for Stuart Olding,he might have a tougher road back to his position simply due to not being in Paddys league. Sport is a cruel mistress and is cruel to those who aren't truly stellar.

    They will both be at clubs for the start of next season. No doubt. I just hope they don't have to emigrate.

    I wish them both well and I hope they can move on.


  • Options
    #93
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.

    Twitterati found him guilty the court didnt.


  • Options
    #94
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    tretorn wrote: »
    He doesnt need to be rehabilitated though.

    As far as he is concerned a stranger invited herself into his home and then went up to his bedroom with him. She stayed in the bedroom for forty five minutes.

    There were three other women who went back to his house and they all testified they had a very pleasant evening there, none went to the bedroom with him though.

    Jackson to his own mind was questioned by the police and he told his truth. The Police didnt believe him and they referred the case to the PPS but the police did tell the PPS the case didnt have the required evidence thats needed for it to go to trial. The PPS disregarded this advice and took the case to trial anyway.

    After nine very long weeks the jury took less than a hour to acquit Jackson, there were four men charged and the jury deliberated for less than four hours in total so thats sixty minutes per man.

    If Jackson hadnt threatened legal action people would insist on referring to him as a rapist. Most twitter people who were calling him a rapist took their tweets down when legal action against O Riordan was launched. The media biased though it is are very careful now too in the way they report on this case now.

    You might think Jackson doesn't need to rehabilitate, he might think that but the money behind Ulster Rugby probably wouldn't touch him with a bargepole right now and that's who needs to convince to get back into the game. You're naive to expect that his legal threats did him any favours too. But then naivety seems to be the name of the game throughout this whole sorry saga.


  • Options
    #95
    BBDBB
    Registered Users Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    Lux23 wrote: »
    Not particularly, but if he showed even a smidge of contriteness outside that courtroom he might manage to get a few quid back quietly. He chose a path which was attack and that backfired massively. He should have just went home and waited for the call.

    and if he had, given the mood and outrage at the time how do you think that go home and wait by the phone plan would have been received?

    Why should an innocent man be silent after nearly two years of accusations hanging over their head and a 9 week trial with a media reporting every salacious detail as though he was guilty?

    Why should people be permitted to go ahead and make vile accusations after a jury has just proclaimed you innocent,unchallenged?


  • Options
    #96
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Twitterati found him guilty the court didnt.

    His bill for his lawyer is completely separate to what anyone thinks of him. However maybe a)his lawyer fell in love with him and won't charge him or b)all his fans might decide to throw him a few bob.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Lux23 wrote: »
    You might think Jackson doesn't need to rehabilitate, he might think that but the money behind Ulster Rugby probably wouldn't touch him with a bargepole right now and that's who needs to convince to get back into the game. You're naive to expect that his legal threats did him any favours too. But then naivety seems to be the name of the game throughout this whole sorry saga.

    He shut O;'Riordan up and had him grovelling. He also had the brave warriors on Twitter and FB scrambling like cowardly rats to delete their bile.
    The man did us all a favour there.


  • Options
    #98
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    His bill for his lawyer is completely separate to what anyone thinks of him. However maybe a)his lawyer fell in love with him and won't charge him or b)all his fans might decide to throw him a few bob.

    No suprise you want him destitute as well. Womankind scorned and all that.


  • Options
    #99
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    No suprise you want him destitute as well. Womankind scorned and all that.
    More rubbish.


  • Options
    #100
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    There isn't one bit of this post that is true.

    There is way more people than the 'ibelieveher sjw's' who don't want them to play for Ireland again. If anyone thinks otherwise then you're deluded, and your head is stubbornly stuck in the sand.

    Whether they follow rugby or not is irrelevant. Sponsors know this. It seems some people here don't.

    Can you prove what you claim? No you can't.

    Have sponsors said one public word on this? No they haven't.

    A short period of suspension may well be enough. You or I don't know.

    Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me?

    And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand.

    Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter.

    They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.


  • Options
    #101
    mfceiling
    Registered Users Posts: 12,774 ✭✭✭✭mfceiling


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.

    I hope someone never brings a court case against you that you win and are left with court costs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    mfceiling wrote: »
    I hope someone never brings a court case against you that you win and are left with court costs.

    That's the system and the exact same thing would happen to me or you in similar circumstances. He isn't left with the court costs, he has to pay the lawyer he engaged to do a job for him. Why don't you gofundhim.


  • Options
    #103
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    The women who sleep with sports star use the men as much as the men who use them.
    The women chase these men for the celebrety factor, they could easily find a nice gentleman at the bar but he cant attract women.
    Leave the women who are happy to play threesomes to it, you either have commonsense and respect for your body or hou dont.
    PJ and men like him arent pretending to be anything other than what they are and its clear now they have no problem attracting women. Dara Florence and her friends are stunning women, they could have left the night club with their choice of men and they freely choose to go to Jacksons house, probably not for Jackson himself but because he was in the VIP section.


  • Options
    #104
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    tretorn wrote: »
    The women who sleep with sports star use the men as much as the men who use them.
    The women chase these men for the celebrety factor, they could easily find a nice gentleman at the bar but he cant attract women.
    Leave the women who are happy to play threesomes to it, you either have commonsense and respect for your body or hou dont.
    PJ and men like him arent pretending to be anything other than what they are and its clear now they have no problem attracting women. Dara Florence and her friends are stunning women, they could have left the night club with their choice of men and they freely choose to go to Jacksons house, probably not for Jackson himself but because he was in the VIP section.

    There's one problem with your post.

    One woman in this case clearly wasn't happy with what happened that night. Should she be ignored?

    I mean, do Jackson and Olding's statements mean nothing in this case? If some women are happy to do that then fine, but that's clearly not what we're talking about here so your big long spiel of irrelevance is exactly what it is.

    You're just short of saying she was asking for it here. Would you like to confirm that is your true sentiment? Happy to be proven wrong but your post reeks of it.

    Happy for you to clarify.


  • Options
    #105
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    That's the system and the exact same thing would happen to me or you in similar circumstances. He isn't left with the court costs, he has to pay the lawyer he engaged to do a job for him. Why don't you gofundhim.

    The 'system' allows him to apply for funds to offset his substantial costs. Get over it.

    There are some around here who would bring back hanging if they could.


  • Options
    #106
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    Grayson wrote: »
    To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

    People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

    And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

    Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads.

    The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves.

    I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course.

    And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #107
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me?

    And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand.

    Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter.

    They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.

    I think they will head off with full pockets and play abroad actually. And the matter will be fudged by the IRFU and sponsors.

    You won't get a dramatic sacking or humiliation. And we will all get back to enjoying the game.


  • Options
    #108
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
    It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
    The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
    "As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

    "The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

    Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
    called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
    It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.


  • Options
    #109
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    givyjoe wrote: »
    Grayson wrote: »
    To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

    People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

    And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

    Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads.

    The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves.

    I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course.

    And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:
    He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case


  • Options
    #110
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Faugheen wrote: »
    Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me?

    And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand.

    Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter.

    They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.

    I think they will head off with full pockets and play abroad actually. And the matter will be fudged by the IRFU and sponsors.

    You won't get a dramatic sacking or humiliation. And we will all get back to enjoying the game.

    I've said from the beginning that they'll end up abroad. Olding in England, Jackson in France is my guess.

    I've also never said they'll get a public humiliation either. If they're leaving, Ulster and the IRFU will release a statement saying they're leaving and that will be that. For the IRFU and Ulster to make a big song and dance about it would be stupid. They want this sorry affair to be over as much as Jackson and Olding.

    Genuinely don't know why you're attributing statements to me when I haven't said anything of the sort.


  • Options
    #111
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,870 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
    It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
    The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
    "As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

    "The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

    Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
    called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
    It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.

    Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing.
    Then get back to us.

    The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Appledreams15
    Registered Users Posts: 379 ✭✭Appledreams15


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
    It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
    The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
    "As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

    "The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

    Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
    called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
    It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.

    Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing.
    Then get back to us.

    The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.
    I think the lads will go abroad. They'd probably be sensible to, considering the anger towards them here, and that they're still young and will get lucrative contracts abroad. Maybe they want to stay because of family.


  • Options
    #113
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    The 'system' allows him to apply for funds to offset his substantial costs. Get over it.

    There are some around here who would bring back hanging if they could.

    I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.


  • Options
    #114
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case
    Really? Or just: some blood on his bed?


  • Options
    #115
    TomSweeney
    Registered Users Posts: 3,193 ✭✭✭TomSweeney


    I actually thought these guys were guilty at first but ...
    During cross-examination by Brendan Kelly QC, representing Mr Jackson, Ms Florence was questioned about two statements provided to police after the alleged incident, in which she claimed the woman had not appeared distressed.

    When asked by Mr Kelly if that remained her recollection, Ms Florence said: "100%."

    The court heard that she did not have any concerns about what she saw in the bedroom.


    convinced me otherwise...


  • Options
    #116
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,955 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing.
    Then get back to us.

    The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.

    I don't think you're right on that. It may have been the case in the past but that sort of thing doesn't wash anymore. Companies like to be seen to take social responsibilities seriously now, or at least recognise that the public take it seriously and won't allow their brand be tarnished by association with such squalid, unacceptable attitudes. If these men had made equally vile slurs on the gay community and it was revealed in such a manner brand support would've been whipped away.
    Women have much more spending power. I think brands will recognize that if they respond by withdrawing custom the burn will be too much. It's much easier to sacrifice a few horrible personalities who can kick a ball.


  • Options
    #117
    Venom
    Registered Users Posts: 6,984 ✭✭✭Venom


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.

    So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?


  • Options
    #118
    givyjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 3,287 ✭✭✭givyjoe


    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
    It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
    The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
    "As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

    "The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

    Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
    called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
    It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.
    Pull the other one :rolleyes:
    There's any but respect for that fact on the previous thread or social media. #ibelieveher ring any bells?!
    Appledreams15 wrote: »
    He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case

    And?


  • Options
    #119
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    Venom wrote: »
    So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?

    Why didn't Jackson apply for legal aid like Olding did? Is it because legal aid would not pay for two counsels and a solicitor?


  • Options
    #120
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    Venom wrote: »
    So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?

    Yes. Can't be any clearer than that.
    Be careful what you are wishing for though because many criminals can afford the very best top lawyers who get them off every day of the week. When such people are found 'not guilty' do you want the state ie you paying their bill ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,955 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    TomSweeney wrote: »
    I actually thought these guys were guilty at first but ...




    convinced me otherwise...

    Were you aware that in her first statement to police Dara said that when she went upstairs she heard "aggressive male moaning", when asked if she meant a "sensual moaning" she responded no.
    She later completely changed that statement to say she just heard sex.

    She said she was 100% sure she saw PJ having penetrative sex with the woman accusing him of rape. PJ says he never had sex with her.

    Something prompted her to open the door on what she believed was people having sex and to walk far enough into the bedroom to see just who was there, she thought it might have been her friend Emily.

    Do you wonder why she would have done that?

    Would you walk in if you believed your friend was having sex?

    Or would you be more likely to only push that door open and walk right into the room if you heard something that made you worry that your female friend was in distress?
    That's the only circumstance I'd do it in. I'd have to be very very concerned before I'd interrupt someone.

    In the trial Paddy Jackson said that despite him having sex with the young lady involved in the case that is real romantic interest lay in Dara.

    His behaviour didn't suggest that.

    I can't help but wonder if perhaps Dara's head was turned by the subsequent attentions of a rugby star.
    Or maybe she liked him too and was annoyed at that what she saw and happier to believe the girl played an active role.

    For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement