Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Augeo wrote: »

Haha London Irish thought that one through alright :pac:

Signs are that they did when they sought to speak to their sponsors in May.

Their sponsors curiously declined though. Why would a sponsor (apparently conscious of it's associations) do that?

This in may ways is a great day for sport. The sponsor is NOT calling the shots. They have been told to shove their money.

Muahahaha wrote: »

His public image is made up of the publics perception of his actions. He controls his own actions, therefore he controls his public image. Its not the publics fault he behaved as he did, its Paddy Jacksons fault and the public are then entitled to make up their own mind, which they clearly have.

The twitter mob have judged him and nothing he has done has altered that. If he publicly flagelated himself it still wouldn't be enough to change his image.

Stop talking nonsense. There is literally nothing he can do to change his image...others are deciding what it is.

Ohmeha wrote: »

Wow, Diageo and social conscience worded in the same sentence

Not Diageo, Guinness (which is the brand concerned).

Pathetic and unethical move by Diageo in my view, but I don't think this will have a huge impact on the club or on Jackson's career. It is yet another example of the need for these cases to be held away from the public view, or with pseudonyms used (as in the case of the ongoing Kriegel murder trial) in order to prevent innocent people from suffering real-life consequences despite not being convicted of any wrongdoing.

It's only a matter of time before this happens in most Western countries in my view. The 24 hour news cycle and social media have made it impossible for 'innocent until proven guilty' to have any real relevance in the current status quo - avoiding judicial consequences but having other areas of one's life destroyed because of bad publicity is very much a perversion of the values democratic societies are supposed to hold dear. In Ireland, we have these rules - but correct me if I'm wrong, they are entirely dependent upon the alleged victim not waiving his or her right to anonymity, and in the case that this happens, the defendant's name is fair game just like it was in this trial? Does this hold true during the case and/or if a not guilty verdict is rendered? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the law here.

Diageo obviously have a right to do whatever they want, but it's highly unethical and goes against core democratic values, to take action against an individual even where that individual has been found innocent, on the basis of private communications which only came into the public domain because of accusations which were subsequently found to be groundless.

Finally, for those calling this a "false allegation" and implying malicious intent on the part of the accuser, this is very unfair in my view. As I posted in the previous thread about this, it seems to me that the most likely sequence of events here was one of those nights which I'm sure we've all had, in which she agreed to something while off her face on some substance or substances, and sobered up in the middle of the act, at which point her rational brain kicked in and said "****, how did I get here and who the **** is this guy"?

We've all been there, or at least I'm sure most of us who grew up in the 2000s have been. I once sobered up and found myself spooning a woman who I knew would never have gone for me in a million years, and she was just as confused as I was, until our friends laughingly showed us videos of the pair of us very much reciprocating eachothers' advanced earlier in the evening. Neither of us had the slightest recollection of basically any part of the night. These things happen when you get f*cked up, and in my view the alleged victim probably genuinely believed this had been non-consensual even if it had been while they were all sh!tfaced.

A very unfortunate situation for everyone involved, but not one which should have led to difficulty for anyone's career. And the text messages, while tasteless, were private messages in a private chat which were never meant to be read by anyone other than the intended recipients. Any young person in any group chat has sent messages in jest which would cause them to die of embarrassment, to say the least, were they ever shared in the public domain.

This is why the laws around trials need to be changed to preclude such details becoming public knowledge in the absence of guilty verdicts.

Beyond that, I hope London Irish stick to their guns and Jackson can have a decent career going into the future.

jm08 wrote: »

Not Diageo, Guinness (which is the brand concerned).

This Guinness?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/guinness-to-pull-six-nations-ads-over-immigrant-offence-concerns-1.3780342

Who made a mistake and typed something they shouldn't have and thought better of later? This the 'Guinness' we are talking about? :rolleyes:

mfceiling wrote: »

I will boycott Diageo products for sure. Makes no difference to me if I never touch another pint of Guinness. As for the other swill (hophouse 13 etc)...Well there's ample choice of craft beers that taste 100 times better than their muck tbh.

Sounds like it was a tough decision for you to boycott their stuff - you've got to respect that.:pac:

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

jm08 wrote: »

And? Mils Muliaina was playing for an Irish club. Do they only have to behave well in the country they're playing in? or could Paddy Jackson have raped as many Italians as he liked and be grand?

I don't think Mils did anything wrong. The way the British police went about it was wrong (and the system in the UK is wrong in how they name accused people). Mils was leaving Ireland anyway, so what could the IRFU do.

Groblers contract wasn't renewed but Diageo didn't pull sponsorship did they?

Are you trying to equate rape with taking steorids now? The only person he was harming was himself.

O'Gara spoke about his wife like a piece of meat - "I wouldn't be nervous getting up on Jessica but I would kicking a ball."

He spoke poorly and apologised publicly to his wife. ROG wasn't working in Ireland at the time anyway.

Gareth Thomas had multiple sessions of sex with men (who have a higher chance of HIV) bareback behind his wife's back. And are you saying it's because Paddy jackson was accused of rape? Sure anyone can be accused of rape!

Was it consensual sex or was he raping them? Has he been accused of rape. Did he apologise to his wife?

Finally, for those calling this a "false allegation" and implying malicious intent on the part of the accuser, this is very unfair in my view. As I posted in the previous thread about this, it seems to me that the most likely sequence of events here was one of those nights which I'm sure we've all had, in which she agreed to something while off her face on some substance or substances, and sobered up in the middle of the act, at which point her rational brain kicked in and said "****, how did I get here and who the **** is this guy"?

We've all been there, or at least I'm sure most of us who grew up in the 2000s have been. I once sobered up and found myself spooning a woman who I knew would never have gone for me in a million years, and she was just as confused as I was, until our friends laughingly showed us videos of the pair of us very much reciprocating eachothers' advanced earlier in the evening. Neither of us had the slightest recollection of basically any part of the night. These things happen when you get f*cked up, and in my view the alleged victim probably genuinely believed this had been non-consensual even if it had been while they were all sh!tfaced.

Agreed with most of the rest of your post, but not this part - if she was as drunk as that, there's a good chance the prosecution would have used the strategy that she was too drunk to consent, which they didn't.

Also, there was evidence from at least one of the other girls at the house party that the complainant didn't seem overly drunk, not to mention that the complainant never claimed to be unable to remember anything at all as well as the fact she remembered various details of the evening that weren't disputed by either side.

All that suggests that at no point was she so out of it that she was oblivious as to what was happening then 'came to' part way through.

weldoninhio wrote: »

That ad was perfectly fine. Some people didn’t like it, so they pulled it. I don’t get your point, is there one??

They admitted to making a mistake. Same as Jackson and Olding did.