Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 1:11pm

Grayson wrote: »

What do you mean throw out? I don't think a jury can throw out or dismiss a charge. They can judge guilty or not guilty(Please correct me if I'm wrong).

They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault and the case was therefore thrown out.

throw out

See: discharge, dislodge, dismiss, displace, eject, eliminate, emit, evict, exclude, expel, oust, pose, propound, radiate, reject, relegate, remove

Grayson · 11-06-2019 1:18pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault and the case was therefore thrown out.

throw out

See: discharge, dislodge, dismiss, displace, eject, eliminate, emit, evict, exclude, expel, oust, pose, propound, radiate, reject, relegate, remove

That's not what thrown out means in legal terms. Thrown out is a colloquial phase for charges being dismissed. That's what happens when the judge dismisses the case.
For example evidence can also be thrown out of court. That means the judge says it's not admissible. It doesn't mean the jury thought it was so.

take for example this case that was "thrown out".

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/drinkdrive-case-thrown-out-after-garda-blunder-27968710.html

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 1:29pm

Grayson wrote: »

That's not what thrown out means in legal terms. Thrown out is a colloquial phase for charges being dismissed. That's what happens when the judge dismisses the case.
For example evidence can also be thrown out of court. That means the judge says it's not admissible. It doesn't mean the jury thought it was so.

take for example this case that was "thrown out".

https://www.herald.ie/news/courts/drinkdrive-case-thrown-out-after-garda-blunder-27968710.html

This is a bit like the Dead Parrot sketch and I am not bothered arguing. Suffice to say: They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 1:34pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?

Seems like crying “false allegation” is the wrong first port of Call.

Grayson · 11-06-2019 1:37pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is a bit like the Dead Parrot sketch and I am not bothered arguing. Suffice to say: They found them not guilty on rape and the lesser charge of sexual assault.

Not really. I'm not trolling or anything. It's just that people are misrepresentation what happened. cases weren't thrown out. A case being thrown out would indicate that there's not enough evidence for the trial to proceed or some serious flaw in the prosecution's case. That's not what happened. there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Neither were they found innocent. It was just determined that there isn't enough evidence for their guilt. That verdict doesn't state they are innocent or guilty, it's a judgement on the evidence, not on the accused.

And that's important because people are making arguments that are factually inaccurate. And I think most of the time it's not deliberate, it's just that they didn't understand the terms.

11-06-2019 1:40pm

Shemale wrote: »

What a one sided outlook. A man who is falsely accused is still treated as guilty no matter what, his life is ruined why is that different to a victim whose life is also ruined? I know of a guy who had a false rape allegation made which the woman later admitted was false and people refer to him as "the rapist".

any one incident of injustice is an injustice

a woman is far more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault that does not lead to a conviction than a man is to be the victim of a false allegation that does lead to a conviction

its something i believe is worth keeping in mind, and if you werent looking to jump to conclusions youd see that my posts in this thread arent on the side of lowering the bar for prosecution or guilt at all.

Shemale · 11-06-2019 1:40pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?

Seems like crying “false allegation” is the wrong first port of Call.

Why is 9% of cases being false acceptable in your opinion?

Why shouldn't 100% of allegations be true?

11-06-2019 1:42pm

Grayson wrote: »

Not really. I'm not trolling or anything. It's just that people are misrepresentation what happened. cases weren't thrown out. A case being thrown out would indicate that there's not enough evidence for the trial to proceed or some serious flaw in the prosecution's case. That's not what happened. there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Neither were they found innocent. It was just determined that there isn't enough evidence for their guilt. That verdict doesn't state they are innocent or guilty, it's a judgement on the evidence, not on the accused.

And that's important because people are making arguments that are factually inaccurate. And I think most of the time it's not deliberate, it's just that they didn't understand the terms.

legally they are innocent- you have stated the direct opposite in this thread

i agree that we should be very wary of people reading their own interpretation of the findings of the court as fact.

in either direction

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 1:44pm

Grayson wrote: »

Not really. I'm not trolling or anything. It's just that people are misrepresentation what happened. cases weren't thrown out. A case being thrown out would indicate that there's not enough evidence for the trial to proceed or some serious flaw in the prosecution's case. That's not what happened. there was enough evidence to warrant a trial.

Neither were they found innocent. It was just determined that there isn't enough evidence for their guilt. That verdict doesn't state they are innocent or guilty, it's a judgement on the evidence, not on the accused.

And that's important because people are making arguments that are factually inaccurate. And I think most of the time it's not deliberate, it's just that they didn't understand the terms.

They were innocent before the case began and that status remained after the case.

That is the term that is not being understood imo.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 1:44pm

Shemale wrote: »

Why is 9% of cases being false acceptable in your opinion?

Why shouldn't 100% of allegations be true?

It’s not acceptable and I didn’t say it was. For almost every crime, there are a small percentage of false accusations. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean I like it.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 1:45pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?

Seems like crying “false allegation” is the wrong first port of Call.

What?

I merely linked to data/fact that shows that false allegations are made.

Shemale · 11-06-2019 1:57pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

It’s not acceptable and I didn’t say it was. For almost every crime, there are a small percentage of false accusations. Acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean I like it.

9% is a long way from a small percentage.

Grayson · 11-06-2019 2:12pm

Deleted User wrote: »

legally they are innocent- you have stated the direct opposite in this thread

i agree that we should be very wary of people reading their own interpretation of the findings of the court as fact.

in either direction

Legally they aren't. They are presumed innocent during the trial. That's so the trial can be fair. But the judgement at the end doesn't declare them innocent or guilty. It just says there's not enough evidence to declare them guilty.

lets say there's two hypothetical options. You can be english or irish. I investigate and don't find enough evidence to say you're english. That doesn't mean you're irish. It just means I can't say that you're english.

Grayson · 11-06-2019 2:14pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were innocent before the case began and that status remained after the case.

That is the term that is not being understood imo.

They were presumed innocent during the case. During a court case they have that right. So everyone walks into the court, the defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

That's only during the case.

Roger Hassenforder · 11-06-2019 2:17pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/ireland-has-highest-rate-of-false-rape-allegations-26532287.html

So if that study is to be taken as accurate, you acknowledge that more than 90% of the cases reported are legitimate?
.

9% are false.
This doesnt mean 91% are actual rapes. The complainant/victim might well believe/think they were raped - or "legitmate" cases.
But that doesnt mean they were raped, irrespective of any conviction rate.

11-06-2019 2:20pm

Grayson wrote: »

They were presumed innocent during the case. During a court case they have that right. So everyone walks into the court, the defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

That's only during the case.

lol

legally we are all innocent

i mean what you are proposing exists only in your head and it is like totes cray-cray

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 2:37pm

Grayson wrote: »

They were presumed innocent during the case. During a court case they have that right. So everyone walks into the court, the defendants are presumed innocent and the prosecution has to prove otherwise.

That's only during the case.

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

11-06-2019 2:40pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

not quite tbh

i can think them guilty, acknowledge them legally innocent and want them nowhere near an association with my brand and theres no contradiction in any of it

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 2:44pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

actually we can discriminate against them in terms of career and employment. they are not in a protected group.

Vicarious Function · 11-06-2019 2:44pm

Just goes to show we need to be careful as to remarks we put on our phones re members of the the opposite sex. They displayed an attitude which has destroyed them, regardless as to whether they have been proven innocent from the get-go. It's that attitude which follows them now.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 2:47pm

Vicarious Function wrote: »

Just goes to show we need to be careful as to remarks we put on our phones re members of the the opposite sex. They displayed an attitude which has destroyed them, regardless as to whether they have been proven innocent from the get-go. It's that attitude which follows them now.

This is third hand info so I can’t say for certain whether it’s true, but a friend in Belfast told me the WhatsApp group the conversation took place in was called ‘Rape and Pillage’.

Their lawyers successfully had this ruled inadmissible.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 2:52pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This is third hand info so I can’t say for certain whether it’s true, but a friend in Belfast told me the WhatsApp group the conversation took place in was called ‘Rape and Pillage’.

Their lawyers successfully had this ruled inadmissible.

From the poster who a few minutes ago was rubbishing a persons 'first hand' account of a case. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 2:54pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

actually we can discriminate against them in terms of career and employment. they are not in a protected group.

Not with any moral standing you can't.

Grayson · 11-06-2019 3:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

lol

legally we are all innocent

i mean what you are proposing exists only in your head and it is like totes cray-cray

This is the point I realised you're definitely trolling.

Grayson · 11-06-2019 3:06pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can think what i like about anybody, as can you.

What cannot be done and what is pertinent here, is, I cannot discriminate against them, in terms of career and employment. (unless you know different) but what has happened as a result of the twitter mob and the #metoo frenzy is that nobody is brave enough to stand up for these men's rights.

Inhumanity to counteract inhumanity. A ridiculous, not to mention, highly dangerous state of affairs.

You can think what you want but that doesn't affect legal definitions.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 3:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

From the poster who a few minutes ago was rubbishing a persons 'first hand' account of a case. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

a) No, I didn’t.

b) I specifically acknowledged that this is essentially local gossip.

It seems like you think you got one over on me there. You didn’t.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:08pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Not with any moral standing you can't.

i dont think they are in any position to claim the moral high ground.their behaviour towards women was despicable. I dont see why anybody would support them after knowing that.

11-06-2019 3:13pm

Grayson wrote: »

This is the point I realised you're definitely trolling.

outrageous from a poster who is trying to invent a legal position of

- guilty until in court
- innocent until proven not guilty
- guilty after court

you are, frankly, pretty impossible to troll with that kind of content

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 3:24pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i dont think they are in any position to claim the moral high ground.their behaviour towards women was despicable. I dont see why anybody would support them after knowing that.

If your child made a mistake, would that be it as far as you are concerned? Would a mistake define their 'attitude' for life?

How would you like it if that was how they were defined/treated for the rest of their lives?

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:25pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If your child made a mistake, would that be it as far as you are concerned? Would a mistake define their 'attitude' for life?

How would you like it if that was how they were defined/treated for the rest of their lives?

you think this was a one-off? that it was the first time they had ever treated or talked about a woman this way?

dont bother · 11-06-2019 3:35pm

Grayson wrote: »

Legally they aren't. They are presumed innocent during the trial. That's so the trial can be fair. But the judgement at the end doesn't declare them innocent or guilty. It just says there's not enough evidence to declare them guilty.

lets say there's two hypothetical options. You can be english or irish. I investigate and don't find enough evidence to say you're english. That doesn't mean you're irish. It just means I can't say that you're english.

pure Hoop Talk that is.

the judgement at the end doesnt say theyre guilty or innocent!?
it says NOT guilty - ie: They are NOT GUILTY of the crimes.

NOT guilty. it's as plain as day!? what else could that "mean"?
it means they are found to be NOT GUILTY of the crimes they were accused of.

anything else doesnt matter. they are found to be NOT GUILTY.
whether thats by "Not enough evidence" - then why was there not enough evidence? cos it didnt happen? who knows - the result of the long detailed trial was that they were found to be

NOT GUILTY of the accusations.

NOT GUILTY>

why is that so hard to grasp?

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 3:37pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you think this was a one-off? that it was the first time they had ever treated or talked about a woman this way?

Which has what to do with learning a life lesson?
Can you answer the question now? You can answer it in terms of yourself as well as for your child or anyone you actually know.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:39pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which has what to do with learning a life lesson?
Can you answer the question now? You can answer it in terms of yourself as well as for your child or anyone you actually know.

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

dont bother · 11-06-2019 3:43pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

This is third hand info so I can’t say for certain whether it’s true, but a friend in Belfast told me the WhatsApp group the conversation took place in was called ‘Rape and Pillage’.

Their lawyers successfully had this ruled inadmissible.

well if you knew the first thing about this case, then you would have known that this gossip is blatantly untrue - it was WIDELY widely reported at the time of trial, before it and afterwards that the whatsapp group was called "top shaggers"

and, come to think of it, neither Stuart Olding nor paddy jackson actually said anything beyond what is said in groups of lads anyway. it was other peoples input in that group that was a bit muddy, but nothing major.

who cares if they have this attitude to women anyway? does it PERSONALLY affect you? maybe the woman was everything they described her as IRL?
you dont know them?
you're making things up now to make it seem like they're worse than they are.

dont bother · 11-06-2019 3:44pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

but how can you regret something that you didnt do?
he's a rugby player, not an actor.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:45pm

dont bother wrote: »

but how can you regret something that you didnt do?
he's a rugby player, not an actor.

i'm not talking about the rape accusation. i am referring to his, and his friends', attitudes to women.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 3:45pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

So judge on jury you are going to be. :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope you don't come up against similar dogmatic/judgmental people in your life.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:46pm

dont bother wrote: »

well if you knew the first thing about this case, then you would have known that this gossip is blatantly untrue - it was WIDELY widely reported at the time of trial, before it and afterwards that the whatsapp group was called "top shaggers"

and, come to think of it, neither Stuart Olding nor paddy jackson actually said anything beyond what is said in groups of lads anyway. it was other peoples input in that group that was a bit muddy, but nothing major.

who cares if they have this attitude to women anyway? does it PERSONALLY affect you? maybe the woman was everything they described her as IRL?
you dont know them?
you're making things up now to make it seem like they're worse than they are.

of course it doesn't affect anybody here. What it does affect is our (well mine certainly) opinion of him.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 3:47pm

dont bother wrote: »

well if you knew the first thing about this case, then you would have known that this gossip is blatantly untrue - it was WIDELY widely reported at the time of trial, before it and afterwards that the whatsapp group was called "top shaggers"

and, come to think of it, neither Stuart Olding nor paddy jackson actually said anything beyond what is said in groups of lads anyway. it was other peoples input in that group that was a bit muddy, but nothing major.

who cares if they have this attitude to women anyway? does it PERSONALLY affect you? maybe the woman was everything they described her as IRL?
you dont know them?
you're making things up now to make it seem like they're worse than they are.

Hang on, are we only discussing things on Boards that PERSONALLY effect us now?

No, I’m not making anything up. You need to take a breath.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:48pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So judge on jury you are going to be. :rolleyes:

I sincerely hope you don't come up against similar dogmatic/judgmental people in your life.

do you not make judgements about other people practically every day of your life? do not decide if you like people, if you would like to be friends with people, if you dont like them at all and never wish to see them again? It is incredibly naive to think we dont judge other people.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 3:49pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not talking about the rape accusation. i am referring to his, and his friends', attitudes to women.

What about the woman's attitude to herself...getting blind drunk, going to a strangers house etc. Should that be held against her?

People make mistakes all the time...at least I have and most others. Some of those on the high moral ground have led unblemished lives it seems.

KikiLaRue · 11-06-2019 3:50pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What about the woman's attitude to herself...getting blind drunk, going to a strangers house etc. Should that be held against her?

People make mistakes all the time...at least I have and most others. Some of those on the high moral ground have led unblemished lives it seems.

Has she been signed for London Irish too?

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:50pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What about the woman's attitude to herself...getting blind drunk, going to a strangers house etc. Should that be held against her?

People make mistakes all the time...at least I have and most others. Some of those on the high moral ground have led unblemished lives it seems.

this wasn't one mistake by them. it was a prevailing attitude. an attitude they have shown no remorse for.

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:50pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Has she been signed for London Irish too?

yeah she is a utility back.

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 3:52pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you not make judgements about other people practically every day of your life? do not decide if you like people, if you would like to be friends with people, if you dont like them at all and never wish to see them again? It is incredibly naive to think we dont judge other people.

Careerblocking, life changing judgements? Absolutely no way, do I make those every day of my life.
I would take a great deal of time to make such a judgement. With absolute regard for the other person. It's called decency and ordinary humanity.

Roger Hassenforder · 11-06-2019 3:52pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which has what to do with learning a life lesson?
Can you answer the question now? You can answer it in terms of yourself as well as for your child or anyone you actually know.

His attitude throughout the trial and afterwards was not one of a man who regretted what he did so i dont think he has learned a life lesson.

What did he do, that he has cause for regret? What life lesson has he failed to learn?

Other than the regret he has expressed:
He told the Press Association he would always regret the events of the night in question.
“I am ashamed that a young woman who was a visitor to my home left in a distressed state... I am also truly sorry for engaging in a Whatsapp group chat which was degrading and offensive and I apologise unreservedly for this.

The criticism of my behaviour is fully justified and I know I have betrayed the values of my family and those of the wider public."

What atonement must he make for degrading and offensive language?
Maybe his attitude is consistent that of an innocent man, who feels he has been wronged in some respect, by being accused of rape?

dont bother · 11-06-2019 3:53pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i'm not talking about the rape accusation. i am referring to his, and his friends', attitudes to women.

surely you can see the hypocrisy in that statement?
you are seething with anger towards these men, so if a lot of women (and there are) share that opinion of men and are so quick to judge, ruin their lives, careers etc - for what? cos you dont like their attitude towards women?

the group was called top shaggers, they are young, good looking rugby players and the women flocked to them. they were getting action.
why is it so bad that they discussed this, albeit crudely, amongst themselves?

just because they have this attitude, why should their lives be ruined?
what gives women the right to do that to a man, ruin their lives, just because they got their backs up about stuff said privately with their mates in a Private whatsapp group?

peer pressure to conform to the language of the group at play, young minds, up to their necks in women all the time, so they would see them more maybe as a commodity, an accessory to their rugby guy lives.

it's natural that guys like that would have some attitude like this to women, but it's certainly not a shock or a surprise.

it was a huge bandwagonry thing with the feminists who took on this stance.

they were found NOT GUILTY.

maybe its time to put the woman who accused them on trial for lying, for trying to sabotage the lives of a number of different men.
it's in the court transcripts that she actually texted her mate BEFORE the night of the alleged rape to say that she hated paddy jackson and would do anything to "bring him down". she had a grudge against Ulster rugby BEFORE the night she was lucky enough to meet paddy et al, and the rest is basically (IN MY OPINION) she rode them all, made a slvt of herself and then used it to "bring paddy jackson down".

why isnt she on trial ?

FrancieBrady · 11-06-2019 3:54pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this wasn't one mistake by them. it was a prevailing attitude. an attitude they have shown no remorse for.

It was an attitude to a type of person...not 'womankind' as the shrill metoo'ers and twitter mob liked to rant about.

Do you think these guys had the same attitude to all women?

dont bother · 11-06-2019 3:55pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Hang on, are we only discussing things on Boards that PERSONALLY effect us now?

No, I’m not making anything up. You need to take a breath.

Listen Lady,
you know you're making it up.

why do people like you always think they can get away with such obvious gaslighting?
everyone can see through it.

"third hand gossip" me hole.

stop getting your frilly knickers in a twist there luvvie

ohnonotgmail · 11-06-2019 3:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was an attitude to a type of person...not 'womankind' as the shrill metoo'ers and twitter mob liked to rant about.

So its ok because they only did it to sluts? it that it?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you think these guys had the same attitude to all women?

it certainly seems like they did. If they had come out afterwards and apologised for how they treated women then it would probably have been forgotten about by now and he wouldnt be so toxic. But he didnt and he is now poison to sponsors.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments