The Sponsors and Advertising Discussion Thread

[the-goon]

First topic message reminder :

There will always be good reason to discuss the influence and the effects of corporate money input sport.

[Collapse2005]

Fly please lets be careful here where this is going, there was no suggestion of false allegations in the verdict.  

Jackson was found Not Guilty in the verdict.

He was and that is a fact but that doesn't assert that the alleged victim and PPS witness was not telling the truth which is what you are alluding to, intentionally or not.  

I was alluding to - directly, as I don't shirk, - I was alluding to the truth that women can and have been proven to Lie in court and elsewhere.  I did not at any point directly infer that this woman - in discussion by the very fact that she made the accusation about Jackson - is guilty of lying.  

I said that femininsits who march against or speak out against a man found Not Guilty should reflect on why they think they can accuse him of motives outside the boundary of the court's finding (that he was Not Guilty of R-a-p-e) yet start pointing threatening fingers when the accusers motives are questioned.  

No allegations were made against the woman. Correct.  She was not on trial.  

Allegations were made against Jackson and others.  He was on trial.  He was cleared, despite what some here might suggest was a 'non-clearance' because the judge didn't use the word 'innocent'.  

In short, he is innocent and named.  She is innocent and not named.

He continues to be smeared by these whispers that He was not being honest, that He is potentially a criminal who got away with something, that his nature is depraved.  These are the allusions thrown at a man who was found Not Guilty in a court of law; ........ allusions, intentional or not.

Is the woman supported by feminists because they believe her to be telling the truth or because she is simply a 'she'?  I know how to protect myself and this site from libel, and nothing I have said is closer to it than anything anyone has said here or externally about Paddy Jackson.

For someone who wasn't on trial, she sure spent a lot of the time on the stand being aggressively questioned by four QCs!

By the way, she was named (on social media). People could see her in the court. Everyone knows who she is (and that her mother is a solicitor and father is in the PSNI).

Hypothetically speaking if your mum is a solicitor and your dad is in the PSNI living in a conservative society would you be worried if one of your peers walked in on you having a threesome with two guys that it might get back to your parents or contemporaries on the grapevine?

[Sin é]

Two observations

1. By all accounts the 8 people who returned to the house/flat (4 men, 4 women) had in excess of 20 units of alchol inside them - out of their heads; so the chance of anyone remember accurately what happened are small.

2. What about some #metoo loyalty to the woman, who was the leading defence witness, in stating nothing untoward happened.
She was hounded out of Ireland as a feminist traitor for giving evidence in a court of law what she believed to be the truth

1. Correct. Everyone had their own truth.
2. This is the girl who the lads were referring to as one of the 'Belfast Sluts' in their whatsapp group while circulating pictures of her?. What I couldn't understand was why she went into a bedroom where she heard people making sexual noises thinking it was one of her friends. What did she do that for?

[rodders]

Rodders, would you call for the sacking of Gilroy from Ulster? Or does he fit in with Ulster and IRFU core values ok for you??

I wouldn't call for anyone to be sacked, but I don't think Gilroy could feel too hard done by if he was.

[Sin é]

Fly please lets be careful here where this is going, there was no suggestion of false allegations in the verdict.  

Jackson was found Not Guilty in the verdict.

He was and that is a fact but that doesn't assert that the alleged victim and PPS witness was not telling the truth which is what you are alluding to, intentionally or not.  

I was alluding to - directly, as I don't shirk, - I was alluding to the truth that women can and have been proven to Lie in court and elsewhere.  I did not at any point directly infer that this woman - in discussion by the very fact that she made the accusation about Jackson - is guilty of lying.  

I said that femininsits who march against or speak out against a man found Not Guilty should reflect on why they think they can accuse him of motives outside the boundary of the court's finding (that he was Not Guilty of R-a-p-e) yet start pointing threatening fingers when the accusers motives are questioned.  

No allegations were made against the woman. Correct.  She was not on trial.  

Allegations were made against Jackson and others.  He was on trial.  He was cleared, despite what some here might suggest was a 'non-clearance' because the judge didn't use the word 'innocent'.  

In short, he is innocent and named.  She is innocent and not named.

He continues to be smeared by these whispers that He was not being honest, that He is potentially a criminal who got away with something, that his nature is depraved.  These are the allusions thrown at a man who was found Not Guilty in a court of law; ........ allusions, intentional or not.

Is the woman supported by feminists because they believe her to be telling the truth or because she is simply a 'she'?  I know how to protect myself and this site from libel, and nothing I have said is closer to it than anything anyone has said here or externally about Paddy Jackson.

For someone who wasn't on trial, she sure spent a lot of the time on the stand being aggressively questioned by four QCs!

By the way, she was named (on social media). People could see her in the court. Everyone knows who she is (and that her mother is a solicitor and father is in the PSNI).

Hypothetically speaking if your mum is a solicitor and your dad is in the PSNI living in a conservative society would you be worried if one of your peers walked in on you having a threesome with two guys that it might get back to your parents or contemporaries on the grapevine?

How would it get back to them if they were that conservative (and mixing in conservative society)? The last thing you would do is report it to the police if you didn't want them to find out.

[Collapse2005]

It would get back to them because someone witnessed her having a threesome and people gossip. The last thing anyone wants in a conservative society is to have a reputation for being promiscuous particularly with multiple partners at once.

It only takes a second to stain your reputation but years to overcome a bad one even if the reputation is unjust. Im sure Jackson can attest to that.

[Sin é]

It would get back to them because someone witnessed her having a threesome and people gossip. The last thing anyone wants in a conservative society is to have a reputation for being promiscuous particularly with multiple partners at once.

It only takes a second to stain your reputation but years to overcome a bad one even if the reputation is unjust. Im sure Jackson can attest to that.

How? None of them even knew her name. They hardly knew their own name. I don't think anyone was taking photos in the bedroom either.

[clivemcl]

Two observations

1. By all accounts the 8 people who returned to the house/flat (4 men, 4 women) had in excess of 20 units of alchol inside them - out of their heads; so the chance of anyone remember accurately what happened are small.

2. What about some #metoo loyalty to the woman, who was the leading defence witness, in stating nothing untoward happened.
She was hounded out of Ireland as a feminist traitor for giving evidence in a court of law what she believed to be the truth

1. Correct. Everyone had their own truth.
2. This is the girl who the lads were referring to as one of the 'Belfast Sluts' in their whatsapp group while circulating pictures of her?. What I couldn't understand was why she went into a bedroom where she heard people making sexual noises thinking it was one of her friends. What did she do that for?

This only further reinforces her credibility - if anyone had reason to not back them up, it was this girl - she wasn't exactly besties with the boys on the docks. She simply did not want to lie. She said what she saw. She said she saw no distress. #ibelievesomehers

[clivemcl]

Rodders, would you call for the sacking of Gilroy from Ulster? Or does he fit in with Ulster and IRFU core values ok for you??

I wouldn't call for anyone to be sacked, but I don't think Gilroy could feel too hard done by if he was.

You do agree though that Jackson and Olding haven't breached IRFU core values any more than Gilroy though?
Or if you see them as different, can you please articulate in what way Jackson and Olding acted that Gilroy didn't which further stepped them outside of the 'core values'?

[Collapse2005]

It would get back to them because someone witnessed her having a threesome and people gossip. The last thing anyone wants in a conservative society is to have a reputation for being promiscuous particularly with multiple partners at once.

It only takes a second to stain your reputation but years to overcome a bad one even if the reputation is unjust. Im sure Jackson can attest to that.

How? None of them even knew her name. They hardly knew their own name. I don't think anyone was taking photos in the bedroom either.

Belfast is a small place, people talk. Fear of people finding out you tackle multiple partners at once also doesn't have to be rational particularly when you stand to lose a lot.

[SecretFly]

People resitting the trial now.  

Let's not go there or truly this thread on LI will be closed down.

The trial is over and Jackson was found Not Guilty.  

He faces the consequences from those that simply don't believe him, those that think him a misogynist for language used mostly by another player, those that don't like his lifestyle choices ...(count me in on that one.  I'm human, I'm heterosexual.  I love women.  I'm no prude.  But there is always taste in the sexual world and I personally don't like that sexual lifestyle he led.  None of my business but I'm putting my hand up that I don't like it)... those that think him depraved for religious reasons possibly, those that feel he is a nice male target to make some political capital on.

He's unlucky that fate ordained that he'd be accused of a serious crime...but he's not remotely unique in the rugby world for sexual choices or language used about women.  A symbolic fall guy.  He'll have to live with as best he can

[rodders]

It would get back to them because someone witnessed her having a threesome and people gossip. The last thing anyone wants in a conservative society is to have a reputation for being promiscuous particularly with multiple partners at once.

It only takes a second to stain your reputation but years to overcome a bad one even if the reputation is unjust. Im sure Jackson can attest to that.

The problem with taking that view, is you could apply this logic to pretty much every alleged sexual assault.

[Collapse2005]

It would get back to them because someone witnessed her having a threesome and people gossip. The last thing anyone wants in a conservative society is to have a reputation for being promiscuous particularly with multiple partners at once.

It only takes a second to stain your reputation but years to overcome a bad one even if the reputation is unjust. Im sure Jackson can attest to that.

The problem with taking that view, is you could apply this logic to pretty much every alleged sexual assault.

Not really, in the hypothetical scenario I presented the woman didn't bat an eyelid when her peer witnessed her in the act nor was there any sign of distress until after she left the room.

Most times someone is assaulted they are delighted to have a witness to witness them being assaulted and to request them to come to their aid that didn't appear to be the case here at all.

[Sin é]

Two observations

1. By all accounts the 8 people who returned to the house/flat (4 men, 4 women) had in excess of 20 units of alchol inside them - out of their heads; so the chance of anyone remember accurately what happened are small.

2. What about some #metoo loyalty to the woman, who was the leading defence witness, in stating nothing untoward happened.
She was hounded out of Ireland as a feminist traitor for giving evidence in a court of law what she believed to be the truth

1. Correct. Everyone had their own truth.
2. This is the girl who the lads were referring to as one of the 'Belfast Sluts' in their whatsapp group while circulating pictures of her?. What I couldn't understand was why she went into a bedroom where she heard people making sexual noises thinking it was one of her friends. What did she do that for?

This only further reinforces her credibility - if anyone had reason to not back them up, it was this girl - she wasn't exactly besties with the boys on the docks. She simply did not want to lie. She said what she saw. She said she saw no distress. #ibelievesomehers

First of all, she wouldn't have known what the lads were saying about her until the court case and secondly, she had every reason to protect her own reputation by claiming the high moral ground. She went into that room where she thought her friend was having sex with someone. Who the hell does that?

[clivemcl]

If Jackson isn't being discriminated against because of sponsors/clubs/IRFU refusing to accept the trial outcome, then their only cause for complaint against them has to be either

a) we don't like promiscuous multiple partner sex
b) we don't like foul language
c) we don't like derogatory language towards females

But since B and C applies to Gilroy and he survived, I can only conclude that IRFU/Ulster/BOI/Diageo are all either...
anti liberal sex, or discriminating against someone based on allegations regardless of trial outcome.

The 'core values' argument should apply equally to Gilroy, if that's their argument. It's quite clearly hypocrisy and discrimination.


And I say this as somebody who doesn't personally agree with A, B or C. I just believe in rehabilitation, second chances and I abhor hypocrisy.

[rodders]

If Jackson isn't being discriminated against because of sponsors/clubs/IRFU refusing to accept the trial outcome, then their only cause for complaint against them has to be either

a) we don't like promiscuous multiple partner sex
b) we don't like foul language
c) we don't like derogatory language towards females

So you are saying that besides a few whassapp messages, you think Jackson's behavour that evening was appropriate?

[Sin é]

Rodders, would you call for the sacking of Gilroy from Ulster? Or does he fit in with Ulster and IRFU core values ok for you??

I wouldn't call for anyone to be sacked, but I don't think Gilroy could feel too hard done by if he was.

You do agree though that Jackson and Olding haven't breached IRFU core values any more than Gilroy though?
Or if you see them as different, can you please articulate in what way Jackson and Olding acted that Gilroy didn't which further stepped them outside of the 'core values'?

Gilroy was just talk, the other two lads were talk and action.

[SecretFly]

Core values is really that strange ever shifting mood called public opinion.

Gilroy wasn't in court, crowds forgot about him, better to slide him back in quietly as attention continued overdrive on Jackson. Jackson was in court, Jackson was higher profile than the others...number 10 on his back, Ireland casual fans knew his name....

It's easy - core values can easily take Gilroy back into the fold and dump Jackson. Core values shift with the winds....

[SecretFly]

Rodders, would you call for the sacking of Gilroy from Ulster? Or does he fit in with Ulster and IRFU core values ok for you??

I wouldn't call for anyone to be sacked, but I don't think Gilroy could feel too hard done by if he was.

You do agree though that Jackson and Olding haven't breached IRFU core values any more than Gilroy though?
Or if you see them as different, can you please articulate in what way Jackson and Olding acted that Gilroy didn't which further stepped them outside of the 'core values'?

Gilroy was just talk, the other two lads were talk and action.

Talk and Legal action.

Gay rights, gay rights not just to be gay but to have full sexual expression being gay...that's what the political movement was for. Not enough that you're prepared to say we exist but don't allow us to be gay in all it's sexual manifestations.

And now, two men engaging in a threesome, probably in real terms as old as time itself..... bad practice that verges on criminal?

[Sin é]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

[SecretFly]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

We're back in court though. Why? How many options would you see if you were a lawyer for that word 'why?'

If you were a professional lawyer, supposedly unmoved by emotion and only wanting the facts, you'd have to come up with more than one possibility/option on your sketch pad. You'd just have to. Now if you were specifically a defence lawyer then you'd be duty bound to come up with more than one option.

So why only one option allowed in public discourse and amongst the woman's political supporters?

[Sin é]

I'm pointing out that the woman didn't enjoy the experience. The lads are guilty of having had sex with this woman, they just went to sleep and had no idea that she ran out of the house bleeding and very upset. They then went onto boast about spit-roasting her the next day and sent photos to each other of 'Belfast Sluts'.

That is the behaviour that people have a problem with - their lack of respect to these women who were being used by them for their own gratification.

[clivemcl]

If Jackson isn't being discriminated against because of sponsors/clubs/IRFU refusing to accept the trial outcome, then their only cause for complaint against them has to be either

a) we don't like promiscuous multiple partner sex
b) we don't like foul language
c) we don't like derogatory language towards females

So you are saying that besides a few whassapp messages, you think Jackson's behavour that evening was appropriate?

Wait what? By my standards? Far from it.
But I'm no dictator, I've long ago accepted that the world isn't what I'd like it to be. I'm not judging the lads based on my own personal beliefs though.
And for what it's worth, my approach would have been press conference, apologies, suspension, and public detail about the plan to rehabilitate.
By castigating these single players, you come out smelling of roses whilst also pretending that everyone else involved at the club is a saint in their personal lives.
We know that's not true.
We know that a LOT of people we 'know' and sometimes work with are far from saints. But they don't have their text messages made public before being found not guilty and suffer public judgement anyway.

My only question is, was there any legal wrongdoing? Trial says no.
My second point is... if any organisation wants to use 'core values' as a reason to sack a player, they must act evenly in all cases where their core values were not adhered to.

[clivemcl]

Rodders, would you call for the sacking of Gilroy from Ulster? Or does he fit in with Ulster and IRFU core values ok for you??

I wouldn't call for anyone to be sacked, but I don't think Gilroy could feel too hard done by if he was.

You do agree though that Jackson and Olding haven't breached IRFU core values any more than Gilroy though?
Or if you see them as different, can you please articulate in what way Jackson and Olding acted that Gilroy didn't which further stepped them outside of the 'core values'?

Gilroy was just talk, the other two lads were talk and action.

Yes... my point A in my other post.

So Diageo and IRFU etc are anti-multiple sexual partners? And that's how you want them to be?
Or what 'action' are you referring to?

[SecretFly]

That presumes too much about the case Sin.  It is expressed detail/opinions from the case, yes - but the jury listened to the evidence - her presumed thoughts, their presumed thoughts - and the judgement was made that the men weren't guilty of the crime they were accused of.

Now, predicting your response a little, you might say to me yet again, but Fly, I'm not questioning the judgement that they were found Not Guilty, I'm distinctly talking about their attitude, their behaviour, her attitude and her behaviour.

I'd say in return that I'm not going to get remotely into the territory rodders fears I might get into.  That is to say, I'm not going to discuss why the judgement was reached other than to say in general that the accuser and the defendant in any trial give versions of the reality that surrounded them on the date in question... that's actions, words, behaviour before, behaviour after etc.  A jury is tasked with taking everything into account in their judgement.  They take into account each version and weigh them up.  They then come to a conclusion.

That's as far as I can go.  Can a finding in court be wrong?  Of course it can.  We've all seen plenty of examples in our times. And I am not for an instant suggesting this outcome was wrong btw. 

But we have to accept lawful conclusions unless and until new evidence appears.  We can think what we like, thank God, but well, you can't lynch innocents on thoughts.  I think that's a crime

[clivemcl]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Are you for real Sin??

You've basically just said that all that is required, the only thing required... is for a girl to report it, and suddenly you believe them without evidence??
Because...i mean...

If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Good grief.

[SecretFly]

Jesus, I'm embarrassed. The fighting real Irish have completely taken over the London Irish thread. Okay so, it's more than a symbolic relationship after all. I take my earlier comments back.

[Collapse2005]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Oh please women enjoy sex too. There are any number of reasons, one which I already mentioned as to why someone would claim they were r____ when they werent. The fact remains why is there literally no evidence including from a witness that she was r____

[Sin é]

That presumes too much about the case Sin.  It is expressed detail/opinions from the case, yes - but the jury listened to the evidence - her presumed thoughts, their presumed thoughts - and the judgement was made that the men weren't guilty of the crime they were accused of.

I've read all the emails and verbatim reporting of the trial. Since it is just a She says/He says evidence, it is absolutely impossible to prove that anyone could prove anything because there is a lot of room for reasonable doubt. If it was a different system as ''Guilty until proven innocent' there would be the exact same issue, except the other way around.

Now, predicting your response a little, you might say to me yet again, but Fly, I'm not questioning the judgement that they were found Not Guilty, I'm distinctly talking about their attitude, their behaviour, her attitude and her behaviour.

I'd say in return that I'm not going to get remotely into the territory rodders fears I might get into.  That is to say, I'm not going to discuss why the judgement was reached other than to say in general that the accuser and the defendant in any trial give versions of the reality that surrounded them on the date in question... that's actions, words, behaviour before, behaviour after etc.  A jury is tasked with taking everything into account in their judgement.  They take into account each version and weigh them up.  They then come to a conclusion.

I think the issue is that the victim didn't have a barrister to look after her and maybe might have questioned the witness whose evidence of ''it looked concensul' was what the verdict was decided on.

That's as far as I can go.  Can a finding in court be wrong?  Of course it can.  We've all seen plenty of examples in our times. And I am not for an instant suggesting this outcome was wrong btw. 

But we have to accept lawful conclusions unless and until new evidence appears.  We can think what we like, thank God, but well, you can't lynch innocents on thoughts.  I think that's a crime

I respect the verdict of the jury that they were innocent of r***.  Its just a very difficult crime to decide on and it is better to error on caution.

[Sin é]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Oh please women enjoy sex too. There are any number of reasons, one which I already mentioned as to why someone would claim they were r____ when they werent. The fact remains why is there literally no evidence including from a witness that she was r____

Well, since the woman ran out of the place clearly upset and bleeding, I think its safe to say she didn't enjoy it.
The last thing anyone would do is report it as r*** to the police if they wanted to keep it quite - particularly since her father was a police officer.

[Sin é]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Are you for real Sin??

You've basically just said that all that is required, the only thing required... is for a girl to report it, and suddenly you believe them without evidence??
Because...i mean...

If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Good grief.

My point is that women do not report r*** lightly (and there are plenty of statistics to back that up).

I have a young relative who while in college, was raped. She was about 19 at the time. She didn't report it because she thought she had done something wrong (by inviting the person into her room to watch a movie) and no one would believe her. She did not do as well as she should have in her finals (having done very well up to then) and about five years later, she is still going to counselling about it. The guy who raped her probably thinks she was up for it, but when you see how badly affected she has been by it, you know that it was r***.

[Collapse2005]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Oh please women enjoy sex too. There are any number of reasons, one which I already mentioned as to why someone would claim they were r____ when they werent. The fact remains why is there literally no evidence including from a witness that she was r____

Well, since the woman ran out of the place clearly upset and bleeding, I think its safe to say she didn't enjoy it.
The last thing anyone would do is report it as r*** to the police if they wanted to keep it quite - particularly since her father was a police officer.

You have given a fairly exaggerated version of events. If there was blood from an assault it should be easy to proove.

[Sin é]

Fly, its the appalling sexism of the lads, nothing to do with gay sexual expression. They used the  women for their own personal gratifications, claiming that she was enjoying it. If she was enjoying it, why did she report it as r***?

Oh please women enjoy sex too. There are any number of reasons, one which I already mentioned as to why someone would claim they were r____ when they werent. The fact remains why is there literally no evidence including from a witness that she was r____

Well, since the woman ran out of the place clearly upset and bleeding, I think its safe to say she didn't enjoy it.
The last thing anyone would do is report it as r*** to the police if they wanted to keep it quite - particularly since her father was a police officer.

You have given a fairly exaggerated version of events. If there was blood from an assault it should be easy to proove.

Easy to prove what?

[No 7&1/2]

Jesus. H. Christ. Put this thread out of its misery. Hopefully the human race progresses eventually.

[yappysnap]

Wasn't her bloody underwear shown to the court? May be mixing cases but I think this is the case.

[geoff999rugby]

Sin you really need to (re)read the trial evidence

what you are posting here is a travesty

[Sin é]

Sin you really need to (re)read the trial evidence

what you are posting here is a travesty

I am re-reading it. For example, the state of the woman leaving PJ's house:

The trial also heard from Stephen Fisher, the taxi driver who picked up Harrison and the woman near Jackson’s house.

“The young woman definitely seemed very upset. She was crying-stroke-sobbing throughout the journey,” he said.

Fisher said Harrison was on the phone to a person at one point (this was later confirmed to be McIlroy) and seemed to be speaking “in code”.

He said he remembers Harrison saying: “She is with me now. She is not good. I’ll call you in the morning.”

The jury also heard medical evidence of the woman’s injuries when she presented at the Rowan Clinic. Giving evidence for the prosecution, Dr Philip Lavery said the most significant injury was a laceration to the woman’s vaginal wall which was still bleeding when she attended at the clinic on the evening after the r***.

Irish Times have it all here. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-r***-trial-1.3443620

For the record, the opinion was that bleeding/lacerations proved nothing relevant to the case.

[clivemcl]

Rodders, and the other admins... you've warned some of us to be very careful on what we say.

Does your concern go as far as to have any issue with the insinuation of somebodies guilt regardless of a judicial trial?

Or are we allowed to make whatever judgement's we like on potential criminal behaviour?

As long as nobody claims the girl was lying, we can all claim Paddy is a r***ist and it's grand?

[Sin é]

Clive, that is a copy and paste from the Irish Times of what was said at the trial. I'm sure they were very careful about being libelious.

One thing which I think PJ & Co. are guilty of - being obnoxious little Poopie for the way they treated that woman.

[clivemcl]

Clive, that is a copy and paste from the Irish Times of what was said at the trial. I'm sure they were very careful about being libelious.

One thing which I think PJ & Co. are guilty of - being obnoxious little Poopie for the way they treated that woman.

Yea, look we don't know at what point she showed sign of distress. And this isn't me claiming anyone is lying or anyone is innocent of mistreatment. I'm just saying, we don't know that the distress was obvious prior to her leaving the house or during the act itself.

What we do have is a witness who had zero loyalty to either party saying she saw no sign of distress upon witnessing the act. And as a female , she would be only too aware of the trauma involved and if anything would be biased towards backing the girl up. But she simply told the truth as she saw it.

Of course, sometimes distress isn't visible - sometimes there is fear that 'freezes' victims. But we simply have no evidence that the boys ignored any reluctance on her part. It doesn't mean there wasn't reluctance, just that we DO NOT KNOW.

And unfortunately because girls sometimes freeze with fear, the other party may not actually be aware of any reluctance - even more so if all involved are under the influence. The only guarantee would be to make it law that the two parties (or three) have to verbally discuss their intent to begin the act. Not exactly how it is in the movies...

The girl was distressed in the car yes, she was bleeding yes. Do girls who have drank a lot sometimes get emotional? Does sex sometimes cause bleeding.

Reasonable doubt. And that's how it should be. We don't destroy people's lives and send them to prison without being sure in the western world.

We just destroy their livelihood and career.

[Heaf]

Clive, that is a copy and paste from the Irish Times of what was said at the trial. I'm sure they were very careful about being libelious.

One thing which I think PJ & Co. are guilty of - being obnoxious little Poopie for the way they treated that woman.

Somebody wasn't that careful ...

Dr Philip Lavery said the most significant injury was a laceration to the woman’s vaginal wall which was still bleeding when she attended at the clinic on the evening after the r***.

Shouldn't that be 'alleged r---' ?  Sounds like somebody had already made up their mind before the verdict ...

[Collapse2005]

Exactly quite a lot of people had already made their minds up and still have which is quite sad given forensic scientists, doctors, judges, juries with access to every detail all together that there was an overwhelming lack of evidence that anything untoward happened. The fact that her story varied too depending on who she told it too really didnt help her credibility either. The reporting of the trial was quite onesided and still is.

Im certain that everyone here, myself included, would be only delighted for someone found guilty of r___ to be locked away but there simply is no evidence that was what happened even if thats what some people desperately want to believe.

[Collapse2005]

Clive, that is a copy and paste from the Irish Times of what was said at the trial. I'm sure they were very careful about being libelious.

One thing which I think PJ & Co. are guilty of - being obnoxious little Poopie for the way they treated that woman.

Yea, look we don't know at what point she showed sign of distress. And this isn't me claiming anyone is lying or anyone is innocent of mistreatment. I'm just saying, we don't know that the distress was obvious prior to her leaving the house or during the act itself.

What we do have is a witness who had zero loyalty to either party saying she saw no sign of distress upon witnessing the act. And as a female , she would be only too aware of the trauma involved and if anything would be biased towards backing the girl up. But she simply told the truth as she saw it.

Of course, sometimes distress isn't visible - sometimes there is fear that 'freezes' victims. But we simply have no evidence that the boys ignored any reluctance on her part. It doesn't mean there wasn't reluctance, just that we DO NOT KNOW.

And unfortunately because girls sometimes freeze with fear, the other party may not actually be aware of any reluctance - even more so if all involved are under the influence. The only guarantee would be to make it law that the two parties (or three) have to verbally discuss their intent to begin the act. Not exactly how it is in the movies...

The girl was distressed in the car yes, she was bleeding yes. Do girls who have drank a lot sometimes get emotional? Does sex sometimes cause bleeding.

Reasonable doubt. And that's how it should be. We don't destroy people's lives and send them to prison without being sure in the western world.

We just destroy their livelihood and career.

Good summary

[Pete330v2]

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/siobhan-oconnor-column-paddy-jackson-16521382

Bravo Siobhan O'Connor, a little counter arguement against the disgusting hashtag campaigners.

[formerly known as Sam]

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/siobhan-oconnor-column-paddy-jackson-16521382

Bravo Siobhan O'Connor, a little counter arguement against the disgusting hashtag campaigners.

Calling them disgusting hashtag campaigners is a bit much. You will get those that have an axe to grind hiding behind the hashtags but they can and are being used positively. Just because you disagree with the social media and the diverse political opinions it brings doesn't mean it is all bad.

If you're going to be a professional sportsman you have to accept that you'll be judged publicly (ask Manu) and that part of the game is sponsorship. Sponsors are only interested in how it will reflect on their product, they aren't going to take a political stand over someone like Paddy Jackson at a club like London Irish. If you do something that is likely to make sponsors want to distance themselves from you then your career is going to be very difficult. With the social media world you can't get away with the stuff internationals got away with in the 90s and even the 00s.

We're seeing it now with Folau. Best thing a young rugby player can do now is sign up to a PR agency and get them to run the social media accounts. Get guidance on PR activity and public interaction early. A less talented player than Paddy Jackson would have completely lost his career.

[Sin é]

Clive, that is a copy and paste from the Irish Times of what was said at the trial. I'm sure they were very careful about being libelious.

One thing which I think PJ & Co. are guilty of - being obnoxious little Poopie for the way they treated that woman.

Yea, look we don't know at what point she showed sign of distress. And this isn't me claiming anyone is lying or anyone is innocent of mistreatment. I'm just saying, we don't know that the distress was obvious prior to her leaving the house or during the act itself.

What we do have is a witness who had zero loyalty to either party saying she saw no sign of distress upon witnessing the act. And as a female , she would be only too aware of the trauma involved and if anything would be biased towards backing the girl up. But she simply told the truth as she saw it.

Of course, sometimes distress isn't visible - sometimes there is fear that 'freezes' victims. But we simply have no evidence that the boys ignored any reluctance on her part. It doesn't mean there wasn't reluctance, just that we DO NOT KNOW.

And unfortunately because girls sometimes freeze with fear, the other party may not actually be aware of any reluctance - even more so if all involved are under the influence. The only guarantee would be to make it law that the two parties (or three) have to verbally discuss their intent to begin the act. Not exactly how it is in the movies...

The girl was distressed in the car yes, she was bleeding yes. Do girls who have drank a lot sometimes get emotional? Does sex sometimes cause bleeding.

Reasonable doubt. And that's how it should be. We don't destroy people's lives and send them to prison without being sure in the western world.

We just destroy their livelihood and career.

Your star witness also said that she saw Paddy Jackson having penetrative sex with the woman which he denied! (From what I recall, he was using his fist!).

And now its the drink to blame for her being upset! As for the star witness, as I've said before, if the woman had a defence barrister, she would have ripped her tale to shreds. She had everything to gain by protecting her own reputation by taking the high moral ground. Can you answer why anyone would barge into a room where you think your friend is having having sex? Maybe she fancied getting involved herself and was unhappy that Paddy had ended up with this other woman.

[Sin é]

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/siobhan-oconnor-column-paddy-jackson-16521382

Bravo Siobhan O'Connor, a little counter arguement against the disgusting hashtag campaigners.

A bit of spin on that article. It says:

After his acquittal last year, Jackson was remorseful, apologising “unreservedly” for engaging in “degrading and offensive” WhatsApp chat about the incident.

Last April he said: “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 it should have said is that about 2 weeks after his acquittal having threatened the world and wife with legal actions, he apologised about two weeks later when put under pressure to do so. This is his first statement (by his barrister after the court case).

https://www.joe.ie/news/read-paddy-jacksons-statement-full-620675

The reason why Stuart Olding isn't getting as much stick as Jackson is because he was apologetic for his behaviour when he came out of the court while claiming his innocence and said he regretted that night.  
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/stuart-olding-i-am-sorry-for-the-hurt-that-was-caused-to-the-complainant-36752975.html

Jackson came across as a complete prick.

[Lagon]

So, Sin;
by saying that if
the girl had a decent legal defence (what makes you believe she didnt), Jackson and Olding would have been found guilty?
A bit silly.

[Sin é]

So, Sin;
by saying that if the girl a decent legal defence (what makes you believe she didnt), Jackson and Olding would have been found guilty?
A bit silly.

Victims/witnesses don't have a defence (they are not meant to need it). They would probably still have got off because its still a ''he said, she said thing'' and impossible to prove either way, so if there is any doubt, they get off.

[Lagon]

Sorry, I meant the Prosecution acting on her behalf, although it was you who claimed "if the woman had a defence barrister, she would have ripped her tale to shreds". That's what I'm getting at.

[Collapse2005]

https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/rugby-union/siobhan-oconnor-column-paddy-jackson-16521382

Bravo Siobhan O'Connor, a little counter arguement against the disgusting hashtag campaigners.

Good well thought out article

[Sponsored content]