Ulster 2017 - 2018

[kermischocolate]

Friends of friends of friends who have signed petitions in relation to the case means it has now been shared onto my facebook page. These have not been people who have anything to do with rugby so the momentum of the "story" isn't going away and is not just restricted to Ulster or Ireland.

All in all it's a rather sordid affair and doesn't reflect well on anyone involved.

[darkside lighteside]

I would be appalled to see them included in an Ireland squad but I somehow doubt that will ever happen.

can I ask why you’d be appalled to see them in an Ireland squad? (Genuine question, not trying to be clever)

Their treatment of that girl on the night in question and the content of the WhatsApp messages makes them unfit to represent Ireland in my opinion and I'd boycott the RDS if they were in an Ulster squad which traveled down to play Leinster.

This doesn't look like just blowing over and Jackson looks to have make the situation even worse today by threatening to sue over the content of a tweet. At least Olding made some attempt at an apology.

In terms of the WhatsApp messages, they bear reading sequentially - noting who actually said what. For example, out of all of the messages introduced into evidence, Jackson only posted 2 - one saying that the NI football squad had been in Ollie's, and the other an IMO lame attempt to join in the banter.

As for the social media storm, they never look like blowing over, until they blow over. Remember #freeourgirls or whatever it was? Swept the world, Michelle Obama etc tweeting, and within literally a couple of weeks, what? Literally nothing, not a thing, nothing practical came of it, nothing happened. Twitter is full of little outraged microsystems campaigning about one thing or another - this is no different. What Jackson's solicitors have done, wisely, is target a few high profile individuals who were recklessly libelling Jackson, and fired a shot across their bows. With no disrespect, as long as nobody with profile continues with the hashtag vigilantism, it's kind of irrelevant how many other people in this particular microsystem keep going - it will definitely blow over. Have a look at the BBC NI news front page - the only mention of the case today is of the juror who wrote online, and that is below "Public consultation on forestry plans' and 'Hero puppy and elderly drinking'

I certainly think the complainant has been badly let down - but primarily by the police and PPS. I have heard from a number of people in the legal profession, and the unanimous consensus is bemusement that this case was ever brought to trial - very long gap between referral and decision to prosecute is read as problems with the quality of evidence and/or politicking within the PPS given the media coverage - and having seen the evidence, the view is that you could put this in front of 100 juries simultaneously and not get one conviction. Essentially no clear physical evidence, sloppy police work, a female eyewitness who said that she didn't see a rape, and complainant testimony which was flawed and inconsistent - given the reasonable doubt barrier, the chances of conviction were always pretty much zero.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Friends of friends of friends who have signed petitions in relation to the case means it has now been shared onto my facebook page. These have not been people who have anything to do with rugby so the momentum of the "story" isn't going away and is not just restricted to Ulster or Ireland.

All in all it's a rather sordid affair and doesn't reflect well on anyone involved.

That petition shows just how removed from reality some people are. I've already said in this thread that I agree with the IRFU doing a review...but they announced that they would do so straight after the verdict, so what are people petitioning for? And when it first appeared people wanted a review into the four defendants, obviously not realising that McIlroy and Harrison have nothing to do with the IRFU. It just illustrates that outrage has trumped reason and that people don't know what they're on about.

Similarly, that "sue me paddy" thing is trending and some of the comments are incredible, but to my mind they're completely missing the point. He's not suing anyone who says he's guilty, he's suing someone who hinted that the trial process was rigged because the defendants were middle class. People don't want to think about things before venting their stupidity.

I'm sure we've all seen versions of this kind of comment but I saw a tweet yesterday from a girl who said that she would rather make a mistake of finding four innocent men guilty with little evidence, than the mistake of letting four rapists walk free. This is quite clearly idiotic...but anyone who disagrees with that kind of stupidity is vilified by the mob.

It's particularly frustrating because there are so many valid things to question about the trial, so I wish the baying mob would stop referring to nonsense like that and focus on the relevant stuff.

[kermischocolate]

Friends of friends of friends who have signed petitions in relation to the case means it has now been shared onto my facebook page. These have not been people who have anything to do with rugby so the momentum of the "story" isn't going away and is not just restricted to Ulster or Ireland.

All in all it's a rather sordid affair and doesn't reflect well on anyone involved.

That petition shows just how removed from reality some people are. I've already said in this thread that I agree with the IRFU doing a review...but they announced that they would do so straight after the verdict, so what are people petitioning for? And when it first appeared people wanted a review into the four defendants, obviously not realising that McIlroy and Harrison have nothing to do with the IRFU. It just illustrates that outrage has trumped reason and that people don't know what they're on about.

Similarly, that "sue me paddy" thing is trending and some of the comments are incredible, but to my mind they're completely missing the point. He's not suing anyone who says he's guilty, he's suing someone who hinted that the trial process was rigged because the defendants were middle class. People don't want to think about things before venting their stupidity.

I'm sure we've all seen versions of this kind of comment but I saw a tweet yesterday from a girl who said that she would rather make a mistake of finding four innocent men guilty with little evidence, than the mistake of letting four rapists walk free. This is quite clearly idiotic...but anyone who disagrees with that kind of stupidity is vilified by the mob.

It's particularly frustrating because there are so many valid things to question about the trial, so I wish the baying mob would stop referring to nonsense like that and focus on the relevant stuff.

Totally agree.

[dropkick]

Because, and this is the real issue, of the way in these Islands we regard female sexuality and attempt to subdue it as a means of control. A man in a threesome is a 'top shagger', to use the unfortunate phrase, whereas a women who indulges in simultaneous polyamory is regarded as being somehow less than. Not much more than a century ago, a woman who derived enjoyment from sex was considered to be, clinically, mentally ill. And whilst the diagnosis may have changed, the attitudes haven't.

I think she's a victim of a society run by men, for the benefit of men, often for the pleasure of men, at the expense of women being truly liberated or truly equal. Its easy to change a law, but changing an entire society in a way that those who benefit from it most have the most to lose?

There are solid biological reasons for womens sexuality being judged differently then mens. Society used to be based on the family for 99.99% of the time humans existed. Women sleeping around was a no no for numerous reasons. For starters it would be highly damaging and result in humiliation for the family especially if the female got pregnant. Also an unmarried mother had no state to look after her. The child growing up without a father was at a big disadvantage.


Men and women were and are not equal because, well, they're different. When the titantic was going down it was women and children first onto the life rafts. I wonder would todays feminists demand equality in the unlikely event they find themselves in a similar situation.

jays is DK, have you been on Breitbart or something

maybe I'm just "woke", but the kind of reasoning on display here is all a bit 1980s and probably best left there.

I'm also finding lolling at the Titanic reference more than a little distasteful - not like you at all.

I was lolling at the behaviour of feminists.

My reasoning is based on 99.9% of human history not just the 1980s.

[dropkick]

There are solid biological reasons for womens sexuality being judged differently then mens. Society used to be based on the family for 99.99% of the time humans existed. Women sleeping around was a no no for numerous reasons. For starters it would be highly damaging and result in humiliation for the family especially if the female got pregnant. Also an unmarried mother had no state to look after her. The child growing up without a father was at a big disadvantage.


Men and women were and are not equal because, well, they're different. When the titantic was going down it was women and children first onto the life rafts. I wonder would todays feminists demand equality in the unlikely event they find themselves in a similar situation.

I have to take up a point in your last paragraph. You say Men and Women were and are not equal because they're different. Men and Women are not the same, certainly, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated equally. Theres a difference between sexual dimorphism and gender equality

Nothing is equal though. The genders have equality by law but the majority of men and women will still choose a female aupair and male builder. That is technically discriminating against someone based on gender but everyone discriminates all the time.

[ronk]

I certainly think the complainant has been badly let down - but primarily by the police and PPS. I have heard from a number of people in the legal profession, and the unanimous consensus is bemusement that this case was ever brought to trial - very long gap between referral and decision to prosecute is read as problems with the quality of evidence and/or politicking within the PPS given the media coverage - and having seen the evidence, the view is that you could put this in front of 100 juries simultaneously and not get one conviction. Essentially no clear physical evidence, sloppy police work, a female eyewitness who said that she didn't see a rape, and complainant testimony which was flawed and inconsistent - given the reasonable doubt barrier, the chances of conviction were always pretty much zero.

A shorter trial with 2 defendants might have stood a chance. Police were probably trying to flip the other 2 but it backfired badly.

The messages the next day were not probative and didn’t need to be used in evidence. It made it look like spite on the part of the prosecution, which it could have been.

[Jackie Brown]

I certainly think the complainant has been badly let down - but primarily by the police and PPS. I have heard from a number of people in the legal profession, and the unanimous consensus is bemusement that this case was ever brought to trial - very long gap between referral and decision to prosecute is read as problems with the quality of evidence and/or politicking within the PPS given the media coverage - and having seen the evidence, the view is that you could put this in front of 100 juries simultaneously and not get one conviction. Essentially no clear physical evidence, sloppy police work, a female eyewitness who said that she didn't see a rape, and complainant testimony which was flawed and inconsistent - given the reasonable doubt barrier, the chances of conviction were always pretty much zero.

A shorter trial with 2 defendants might have stood a chance. Police were probably trying to flip the other 2 but it backfired badly.

The messages the next day were not probative and didn’t need to be used in evidence. It made it look like spite on the part of the prosecution, which it could have been.

Indeed, the WhatsApp messages did nothing but smear their characters. Very very hard to take considering PJ wrote 2, one confirming the NI football team and another confirming a spit roast had occured. Nothing derogatory from him.

Yer woman used more derogatory language, describing the other girls as sluts. It's a pity the defence couldn't use a similar smearing tactic on the accuser, I wonder what they'd have dug up. The #ibelieveher crowd could be looking a bit naive and silly if they had all the facts.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Oldschoolsocks]

classy as always Jackie

[Jackie Brown]

classy as always Jackie

I thought I was very measured. The PPS and PSNI conducted a smear campaign in the hope of swaying the jury due to a lack of any evidence.

The girls testimony changed numerous times, including in one instance after the PSNI filled her in on a what a witness had said. Which sounds like a strange thing to be doing.

The guys were consistent. Yes their stories didn't dove tail but there was a serious amount of drink consumed AND then the prosecution tried to say they'd met up in a café the next day to get their stories straight. How does that work?

McIlroy even said in the WhatsApp to Harrison that he had trouble remembering. McIlroy is well known as being a mouth and blow hard. Nearly all the nasty WhatsApps are from him bragging about something that no one accused him of. He's a tool and you can't condemn PJ for McIlroy's lack of class.

Finally, do you think PJ and SO would be bragging on a WhatsApp about sexual assault/rape? That sounds crazy to me and all lends itself to that at worst they weren't aware she hadn't consented, or, more than likely, she did consent but panicked after Dara walked in and thought she had been photographed.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Jackie Brown]

This story is close to dropping off our news cycle up here. We had 200 'protestors' in Belfast and about 20 in Derry. Everyone I talk to is very measured about it, both male and female. No one knows what went on, Jury had all facts available and came to a quick, unanimous decision. Guys have been suspended for a season, that should be the end of it.

The witch hunt is being fueled by the lunatic fringe in the South. I reckon it's to do with the referendum coming up and the fact you can't comment on any rape trials down your way. It's a lot of disinformation and news twisted to fit an agenda. If the IRFU and UB succumb to mob rule then I know a lot of people who won't be renewing their Season Tickets.

I would be more worried about losing sponsors due to; a lack of top European Rugby, pure muck being sold as rugby, a half empty stadium and no TV coverage. We are a fecking shambles.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[artaneboy]

Yeah, if only that was all they did.

I would be appalled to see them included in an Ireland squad but I somehow doubt that will ever happen.

I realise that all I can go on is the judgement of the court and the evidence that was reported, but thats just me.

Resisted commenting on this to date, but I have to agree with you.

The texts were disgraceful- while hardly surprising of the behaviour of young men. And that won’t change for all the outrage projected by media of all sorts and “commentators” on the issue. It also had damn all to do with rugby; despite the opportunistic rubbish from the same hacks.

But those texts were never actually relevant to the events. They were contrived to place the defendants in a bad light; it worked very well. The actual evidence was not (to my judgement) of a consistent standard to justify a conviction. The jury obviously thought so too. But that won’t satisfy a lynch mob.

Overall and against the self-serving media narrative, I think that Jackson’s (his legal team really) more robust approach to the twittering on the verdict will prove better for his reputation and future life than Olding’s regrets- undoubtedly sincere are they clearly are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hippo]

And in contrast to the above I think Olding's comments reflect well on him, and Jackson's very poorly on him.

There's been very little empathy evident on this thread from an early stage, which somehow for me highlights how incredibly difficult it is to get any allegation of sexual assault off the ground let alone to trial, something backed up by the stats. Many men - and this is, despite not what some might think, not a 'lunatic fringe' view - need to start examining their attitudes to women. Anyone who thinks women go around making 'revenge' allegations or allegations based on 'regret' so that they can spend over a week being grilled in cross examination by four QCs needs their head examined.

[rooster]

I certainly think the complainant has been badly let down - but primarily by the police and PPS. I have heard from a number of people in the legal profession, and the unanimous consensus is bemusement that this case was ever brought to trial - very long gap between referral and decision to prosecute is read as problems with the quality of evidence and/or politicking within the PPS given the media coverage - and having seen the evidence, the view is that you could put this in front of 100 juries simultaneously and not get one conviction. Essentially no clear physical evidence, sloppy police work, a female eyewitness who said that she didn't see a rape, and complainant testimony which was flawed and inconsistent - given the reasonable doubt barrier, the chances of conviction were always pretty much zero.

A shorter trial with 2 defendants might have stood a chance. Police were probably trying to flip the other 2 but it backfired badly.

The messages the next day were not probative and didn’t need to be used in evidence. It made it look like spite on the part of the prosecution, which it could have been.

Not the proverbial snowball in hells chance of changing the verdict, I know a couple of people who attended some of the trial and they started with the opinion that the guys could well be found guilty of this but the minute the witness Dara Florence took the stand and gave her evidence, not all of which the papers reported I might add, they said the case was over and done from then on, the rest was just a farce.
When the police and PPS investigated they seemed to have not taken into account that damming statement from her as at that stage the complainant had not even mentioned that part of the night. Police then updated the complainant and her mother and suddenly the complainant remembered and changed her statement to the turning away incase she was photographed.

There is a fair bit more of that part of the story but those were the key points.

[rooster]

And in contrast to the above I think Olding's comments reflect well on him, and Jackson's very poorly on him.

There's been very little empathy evident on this thread from an early stage, which somehow for me highlights how incredibly difficult it is to get any allegation of sexual assault off the ground let alone to trial, something backed up by the stats. Many men - and this is, despite not what some might think, not a 'lunatic fringe' view - need to start examining their attitudes to women. Anyone who thinks women go around making 'revenge' allegations or allegations based on 'regret' so that they can spend over a week being grilled in cross examination by four QCs needs their head examined.

I think there would have been a lot more empathy with the trial if it had been the case that guys were cleared on a technical detail in the evidence and you were left up in the air as to whether an offence happened or not.

[artaneboy]

And in contrast to the above I think Olding's comments reflect well on him, and Jackson's very poorly on him.

There's been very little empathy evident on this thread from an early stage, which somehow for me highlights how incredibly difficult it is to get any allegation of sexual assault off the ground let alone to trial, something backed up by the stats. Many men - and this is, despite not what some might think, not a 'lunatic fringe' view - need to start examining their attitudes to women. Anyone who thinks women go around making 'revenge' allegations or allegations based on 'regret' so that they can spend over a week being grilled in cross examination by four QCs needs their head examined.

Olding felt remorse for his general behaviour and is gaining some initial credit for his statement. But that vis-a-vis Jackson’s. His genuine regrets will in time he banked as an admission of sorts. Jackson’s more aggressive assertion of his innocence will in time be recognised as the only consistent approach possible following an very un-empathetic criminal charge.

Hippo- I’ve long respected your balanced approach to all matters here. And I understand your position. But I think you are mistaken (Note: not WRONG) here. I have empathy- but it’s not reserved or one side. The crescendo of condemnation is not universal even where you might think it is.

I’m married to an intelligent self-confident woman and we have a very independent daughter in her twenties; I’ve three forthright sisters and many female friends, who have their own views. There was little talk in our household of the issue at the start- other than a distaste at the texts, until the evidence was in. The general view in our family is that the jury got it right.

Does this mean we don’t reflect or empathise with victims of sexual assault? I don’t think so. What it does mean is we were not convinced on the merits of the prosecution.

If we don’t believe the “victim’s” account (there’s a loaded term), does that mean there isn’t blame to go around- including to the four men, the complainant and the PSNI? No: there’s plenty. But I’m not buying that this case is a ‘class action’ on society’s attitude to sexual assault. Im sorry but that’s lazy thinking.

[Hippo]

How can you have an empathetic criminal charge?

I never mentioned or explicitly criticised the jury's verdict. It's impossible for anyone to reach a determinative conclusion on 9 weeks of courtroom evidence without being present and I wouldn't presume to do so. Juries themselves are a whole other discussion, ask anyone who's been on a jury! I'm not criticising anyone who says there may not have been enough evidence to secure a conviction. My comment was directed at the general debate that has arisen, one which is well worthy of discussion, and at the tenor of much of the commentary here, which has been entirely dismissive of the complainant and her experience.

Olding's comment at least demonstrated a degree of empathy with her. Jackson's most certainly did not. It's critical to remember that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is an extremely high bar to overcome for a prosecution - and especially in the area of rape or sexual assault which so often comes down to a 'he said/she said'. It really doesn't take much for a defence to create enough vagueness in the narrative to bring a jury home. Again, the ridiculously low successful conviction stats bear this out - and yet no one would (I think) suggest that sexual assault or rape hardly ever occurs or that complainants are always lying.

I think a further debate should take place regarding the conduct of such trials, and I'm pleased to see Charlie Flanagan running with the idea in this jurisdiction. Certainly the daily public exposure of the trial in the North - for both sides - was appalling, and there is much to be learned from how other countries approach the issue.

[Jackie Brown]

Flanagan is jumping on the Twatter bandwagon for a bit of electioneering. It's cynical in the extreme. You have annonimity for all parties in these trials already.

Maybe the #ibelieveher crowd should read this,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... nants.html

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[fourthirtythree]

Olding's comment at least demonstrated a degree of empathy with her. Jackson's most certainly did not. It's critical to remember that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is an extremely high bar to overcome for a prosecution - and especially in the area of rape or sexual assault which so often comes down to a 'he said/she said'.

Something that Paddy Jackson and his legal team will hopefully discover when they sue everyone in civil court where the standard is not "beyond reasonable doubt" but rather on the balance of the probabilities.

It worked out really well for Oscar Wilde (he actually was a "somdomite"...)

[rooster]

Knowing a couple of people who attended the trial frequently, for various reasons but started out 1 not sure but thought guys would get prosecuted in some form and the other who was pretty much on the girls side and when they heard that evidence from the only sober person at the party, Dara Florence, they both were convinced of the guys innocence in the affair, they were on the turn before that on cctv footage anyway about being dubious of the complainants truthfulness in the affair.