Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

RuMan

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

Also hire a hitman to take out the sober witness who walked in and felt it was consensual ?

seamus

wakka12 wrote: »

A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

People were already wound up about it though.

A solicitor friend had remarked about ten days ago that she was 100% sure the guys were going to "get off", and she was already spitting feathers about it at that stage.

So people didn't suddenly become angry about this yesterday when the verdict came through. They'd already decided the guys' guilt and the weeks of reporting on the trial only served to fuel their anger and certainty. We know that when someone has formed an opinion on something, they tend to ignore any evidence that doesn't support that opinion and embrace the evidence that does.

I wouldn't have been surprised if large marches had popped up out of nowhere last night tbh.

Guy:Incognito

wakka12 wrote: »

My brother went to an Ibelieveher march in dublin city centre today, he said there were several thousand people there, he estimated 3k or so. A strong turnout for an event that was created on Facebook last night

Where were all these idiots for every other rape trial where men were acquitted? Or are paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding the first ones that were guilty ( not in court obviously but sure that doesn t matter )

I presume they all attended the full trial and studied the evidence? Wouldn't be like the great unwashed of Twitter to go off half cocked and not fully inform themselves befor acting.

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

Take the story I posted earlier, about a guy who pressured me to let him into my flat so he could use the loo and he made a move on me, quite aggressively. Would you as a man have anywhere near the same worries and concerns I would, if a woman asked you the same? Would you be worried that she could overpower and rape you, already rehearsing how you could explain to the Guards why you let a stranger into your home? Or would you just let her in to have a p1ss, without thinking about it? 

Why reverse the genders? As a man I wouldn't allow any stranger [male or female] into my home while I was there alone.

While I wouldn't be afraid of being raped by most women (a roseanne barr type person would easily destroy me, and oddly enough that sized person is becoming more common in Ireland these days), I am aware of the range of weaponry easily hidden around someone person. I'm also aware of the range of claims a female can make about a man when there's no witnesses nearby. Boards has plenty of recent examples of false claims made against complete strangers.

Fact is... No stranger gets into my home, while I'm there alone. If I have some friends or family with me, sure. Any other response is irresponsible.

I don't get this belief that some women have that they should be safe regardless of what they do. The world is not a nice place. Get over it and look to your own protection. Be responsible for your own choices, and stop passing the buck.

GreeBo

blanch152 wrote: »

Before the law though, they are as innocent as I am of the crime.

Christ on a bike!
Yes we all know that.

What is in dispute is that they have been PROVEN innocent.

Thats it.

blanch152

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

not guilty != proven innocent
not guilty == innocent

Its quite a simple differentiation and has been explained ad nauseum on this thread already.

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

RuMan

seamus wrote: »

People were already wound up about it though.

A solicitor friend had remarked about ten days ago that she was 100% sure the guys were going to "get off", and she was already spitting feathers about it at that stage.

So people didn't suddenly become angry about this yesterday when the verdict came through. They'd already decided the guys' guilt and the weeks of reporting on the trial only served to fuel their anger and certainty.

I wouldn't have been surprised if large marches had popped up out of nowhere last night tbh.

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

awec

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

That’s not the moral of the story at all.

People keep waffling this, and conveniently ignoring that the key witness, the only person in the room who wasn’t the alleged victim or in the dock, did NOT corroborate the prosecutions version of events.

You are going to find it hard to win any case of your side of the story is inconsistent and does not tally with witness accounts.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

Aufbau wrote: »

When did the definition of sexual assault change? Link?

And the reason that the courts aren't flooded with cases should be quite obvious.

It is quite obvious, its not happening!


Linky for definition of sexual assault starting to change in UK

Uninvited sexual advances and unwanted verbal contact with a woman, including catcalling or wolf-whistling in the street, are to be recorded as a hate crimes in a new effort to tackle sexist abuse

skallywag

Wibbs wrote: »

On the point of "always believe women", in this case it seems it was the testimony of another woman that was a large factor in what led to a verdict of not guilty, so why believe one woman and not another?

Salient point. If I had been on the jury Dara Florence's evidence would certainly have swayed me towards an acquittal.

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why reverse the genders? As a man I wouldn't allow any stranger [male or female] into my home while I was there alone.

While I wouldn't be afraid of being raped by most women (a roseanne barr type person would easily destroy me, and oddly enough that sized person is becoming more common in Ireland these days), I am aware of the range of weaponry easily hidden around someone person. I'm also aware of the range of claims a female can make about a man when there's no witnesses nearby. Boards has plenty of recent examples of false claims made against complete strangers.

Fact is... No stranger gets into my home, while I'm there alone. If I have some friends or family with me, sure. Any other response is irresponsible.

I don't get this belief that some women have that they should be safe regardless of what they do. The world is not a nice place. Get over it and look to your own protection. Be responsible for your own choices, and stop passing the buck.

Letting a stranger wander into your house is daft. Be it male/woman/trans letting a male/trans/woman in. In now way is that ever a good idea.

RuMan

RuMan wrote:

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

Oh they will. You can be sure of that

Guy:Incognito

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Anyway moral of the story is if you feel you are being raped you need to take detailed notes of who did what, who was in the room, all the witnesses and you need to write out one version of events and one only, and ensure the cops and the doctors have a copy each, then ensure you are only taking one person to court because otherwise it's 4 against one and you will not beat them. Essentially you need to be a cop.

So what do you think should happen? Woman goes to the police and says she raped. The police take the names and go lock the lads up on her word? Presumably for whatever length of times she seems appropriate.

But of course any crime you are accused of, the burden of proof should lie with the state, yeah?

RuMan

pjohnson wrote: »

Letting a stranger wander into your house is daft. Be it male/woman/trans letting a male/trans/woman in. In now way is that ever a good idea.

Just ask Paddy Jackson

irishrebe

RuMan wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

People were already wound up about it though.

A solicitor friend had remarked about ten days ago that she was 100% sure the guys were going to "get off", and she was already spitting feathers about it at that stage.

So people didn't suddenly become angry about this yesterday when the verdict came through. They'd already decided the guys' guilt and the weeks of reporting on the trial only served to fuel their anger and certainty.

I wouldn't have been surprised if large marches had popped up out of nowhere last night tbh.

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

Just a question. Do threads about anti abortion protesters and anti gay marriage protesters attract as much venom when posted about on Boards?

ShowMeTheCash

irishrebe wrote: »

I have said since the very beginning of the thread that the lads have been found not guilty and the protest is wrong. Absolutely do not agree with them being labelled rapists. Never said otherwise. But daring to suggest that both the ROI and NI have a lot of work to do when it comes to women's rights is enough to send some people into a tizzy.

Just interested what you mean by woman's rights?
What rights to do refer too?

GreeBo

blanch152 wrote: »

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

The differentiation is factual and legal though.

No one was asked to prove their innocence at the trial, hence there is no verdict that proves innocence or indeed an innocent verdict.

The verdict is that there is a lack of evidence of guilt, i.e. not guilty and since the default status of any accused is innocent, the men are deemed innocent due to lack of evidence to the contrary.


Lets look at your argument if we switch the default.
Lets say that you are guilty until you prove innocence.

If you are accused of a crime that you did not commit but have no way of proving that you didnt, Im sure you wouldnt agree that you have been proven guilty.

Yet thats *exactly* the logic you are using to say they are proven innocent. Its a logical failure akin to:
My dog is black.
My wife is black.
My wife is a dog.

irishrebe

pjohnson wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Why reverse the genders? As a man I wouldn't allow any stranger [male or female] into my home while I was there alone.

While I wouldn't be afraid of being raped by most women (a roseanne barr type person would easily destroy me, and oddly enough that sized person is becoming more common in Ireland these days), I am aware of the range of weaponry easily hidden around someone person. I'm also aware of the range of claims a female can make about a man when there's no witnesses nearby. Boards has plenty of recent examples of false claims made against complete strangers.

Fact is... No stranger gets into my home, while I'm there alone. If I have some friends or family with me, sure. Any other response is irresponsible.

I don't get this belief that some women have that they should be safe regardless of what they do. The world is not a nice place. Get over it and look to your own protection.  Be responsible for your own choices, and stop passing the buck.

Letting a stranger wander into your house is daft. Be it male/woman/trans letting a male/trans/woman in. In now way is that ever  a good idea.

Eh, maybe we have our wires crossed here. I'm not talking about a total stranger. This fella was someone who was a friend of a friend, had been on our night out, was walking with me in the same direction and seemed grand. Are you really saying you wouldn't let a woman in to have a wee, in the same circumstances?

CruelCoin

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

not guilty != proven innocent
not guilty == innocent

Its quite a simple differentiation and has been explained ad nauseum on this thread already.

There is never a case where the accused are declared "proven innocent".

So why do you bring it up at all? What is the point in making the distinction in the first place.
Either you treat the person as innocent in the event of a not-guilty verdict, or you may as well just kangaroo court everything.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't want to take the bar. I finished my law degree over a decade ago. I've spent most of the last few years working in a specific field, which I can hopefully continue in over there, if I go.

So you were about 20 when you finished your law degree?? I dont know many people who spend all that time and cash to study law and give it up to be a freelance translator with "no skills". Seems like an expensive hobby

irishrebe

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I have said since the very beginning of the thread that the lads have been found not guilty and the protest is wrong. Absolutely do not agree with them being labelled rapists. Never said otherwise. But daring to suggest that both the ROI and NI have a lot of work to do when it comes to women's rights is enough to send some people into a tizzy.

Just interested what you mean by woman's rights?
What rights to do refer too?

Let's see. The right for rape victims to be taken seriously when they report a rape (rape kit done, psychologists, etc.) and the right for women to have an abortion, to start with. Are those things not important?

Blud

blanch152 wrote: »

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

I agree with the sentiment, dont get me wrong hete. But the only proper response is that the lads should be referred to as innocent or not guilty, with the word "proven" left out.

The trial didn't prove they were innocent, it equally didn't prove that they were not innocent. It's just not the objective of a criminal trial.

That said, it leaves them in a position where they are not guilty. And that should be good enough.

CruelCoin

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Is it up to the government to house people?

If the answer is yes then why should anyone be paying a mortgage or renting in this world?

Who's responsibility is it for people to have a house?

Wrong thread dude

GreeBo

irishrebe wrote: »

Eh, maybe we have our wires crossed here. I'm not talking about a total stranger. This fella was someone who was a friend of a friend, had been on our night out, was walking with me in the same direction and seemed grand. Are you really saying you wouldn't let a woman in to have a wee, in the same circumstances?

Its scenarios like this that have men afraid to have women alone in their company in case they subsequently accuse them of abuse/rape.

Do you, as a Single Female Lawyer ever fear that if you are alone with a man he may go on to accuse you of sexual abuse? I'm going to go ahead and assume not, since you are apparently constantly worried that he is going to overpower and rape you.

Yet thats the reality for many men in the world, especially those who are famous or in positions of power.

Hows that for some female privilege?

Theboinkmaster

CruelCoin wrote: »

To be fair, it's usually because they approach the police or have guns etc.

I've yet to see a case where a white cop, or any cop, pulled over a black person for a broken taillight and proceeded to kill them in their drivers seat...

It's an unwarranted fear and ignores all the other circumstances.

um...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OddPn5P1es

Ulysses Gaze

RuMan wrote: »

Lets hope these serial protesters don't derail the Repeal the 8th referendum with their stupidity.

They will.

They have learned nothing from the Trump election nor Brexit.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't want to take the bar. I finished my law degree over a decade ago. I've spent most of the last few years working in a specific field, which I can hopefully continue in over there, if I go.

So you were about 20 when you finished your law degree?? I dont know many people who spend all that time and cash to study law and give it up to be a freelance translator with "no skills". Seems like an expensive hobby

I was 21, the normal age to finish a degree. I got a full grant to do it, so no, I didn't spend much 'cash' and nor did I think I was too old to take a different path, at 21. I realised I didn't want to be a barrister (original plan) and that I missed using my languages and went on to train as a legal translator and work in a different field. I love how you find this so unbelievable. I know people who did medical degrees and realised they didn't want to be doctors. Strange, isn't it, that you don't know exactly what you want to do with your life at the age of 17?

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

Just a question. Do threads about anti abortion protesters and anti gay marriage protesters attract as much venom when posted about on Boards?

If the verdict was guilty and men started protesting all over the country I would be just as disgusted.

I also have a feeling you would be posting venom

Guy:Incognito

Blud wrote: »

I agree with the sentiment, dont get me wrong hete. But the only proper response is that the lads should be referred to as innocent or not guilty, with the word "proven" left out.

The trial didn't prove they were innocent, it equally didn't prove that they were not innocent. It's just not the objective of a criminal trial.

That said, it leaves them in a position where they are not guilty. And that should be good enough.

10 weeks ago they were innocent.

Nothing has changed.

They still are.

Appledreams15

irishrebe wrote: »

Let's see. The right for rape victims to be taken seriously when they report a rape (rape kit done, psychologists, etc.) and the right for women to have an abortion, to start with. Are those things not important?

I have heard from a few men today 'who cares'.

When you look at how viciously women are treated in many parts of the world, you'd wonder where this viciousness towards women originated?

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Men know that women are suffering, right?

I know it is conceptually hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone suffering racism, I think that is why men turn a blind eye to all the abuse women receive.

Please try and think of what your fellow human beings are suffering. I spoke to another girl crying about being raped at the rally today.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I don't want to take the bar. I finished my law degree over a decade ago. I've spent most of the last few years working in a specific field, which I can hopefully continue in over there, if I go.

So you were about 20 when you finished your law degree?? I dont know many people who spend all that time and cash to study law and give it up to be a freelance translator with "no skills". Seems like an expensive hobby

You do realise, BTW, that a law degree is a standard requirement for a legal translator? Not sure why you seem to think I wasted my degree. I'm using it. I don't get the thinking around here, at all.

kylith

GreeBo wrote: »

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

not guilty != proven innocent
not guilty == innocent

Its quite a simple differentiation and has been explained ad nauseum on this thread already.

Let me put it this way.

You come home and see one of your neighbours leaving your house with your cashbox. You make a complaint to the Gardaí and it goes to trial. At the trial your neighbour is found not guilty because they couldn't find your cashbox and so there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury 100% that he did it.

Your neighbour is not innocent of stealing from you, but has been found not guilty because the theft could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

I was 21, the normal age to finish a degree. I got a full grant to do it, so no, I didn't spend much 'cash' and nor did I think I was too old to take a different path, at 21. I realised I didn't want to be a barrister (original plan) and that I missed using my languages and went on to train as a legal translator and work in a different field. I love how you find this so unbelievable. I know people who did medical degrees and realised they didn't want to be doctors. Strange, isn't it, that you don't know exactly what you want to do with your life at the age of 17?

So you finished your degree and never done the exams to become a solicitor or baristar? So you spent 4 years studying your ass off and when it was done you just walked away? SO you have a degree but your not qualified in Law?

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

Just a question. Do threads about anti abortion protesters and anti gay marriage protesters attract as much venom when posted about on Boards?

If the verdict was guilty and men started protesting all over the country I would be just as disgusted.

I also have a feeling you would be posting venom

Are you really telling me that if the verdict was guilty that no men would be posting venom online? With choice words for the accuser? Are you telling me they weren't doing it long before any conclusion was reached in this case?

irishrebe

irishrebe wrote: »

Eh, maybe we have our wires crossed here. I'm not talking about a total stranger. This fella was someone who was a friend of a friend, had been on our night out, was walking with me in the same direction and seemed grand. Are you really saying you wouldn't let a woman in to have a wee, in the same circumstances?

Definitely. If I was alone with her. Or Him.

If there's a group of people with some I know personally, then sure. If it's a group of strangers, I wouldn't be there.

iamwhoiam

Mr.H wrote: »

So you were about 20 when you finished your law degree?? I dont know many people who spend all that time and cash to study law and give it up to be a freelance translator with "no skills". Seems like an expensive hobby

Its none of your business why anyone does not choose to use a degree or work in the field of their degree . It also had nothing whatsoever ever to do with this thread why a poster chooses a certain path in life

GreeBo

CruelCoin wrote: »

There is never a case where the accused are declared "proven innocent".

So why do you bring it up at all? What is the point in making the distinction in the first place.
Either you treat the person as innocent in the event of a not-guilty verdict, or you may as well just kangaroo court everything.

Exactly, which is why I and others are correcting a number of posters who keep insisting that they were proven innocent, implying that its not possible that this woman was indeed raped by these men.

We are not bringing it up.

Blud

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

10 weeks ago they were innocent.

Nothing has changed.

They still are.

Banging head off a wall here.

Yes, they are innocent. I can't say that enough.

No, nobody has proven them to be innocent. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but nobody has tried to prove their innocence as yet.

Someone tried to prove their guilt and failed. It is not the same as probing innocence.

Honestly, the state of some of the posts grappling with this. Happy to be going home soon.

irishrebe

Mr.H wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I was 21, the normal age to finish a degree. I got a full grant to do it, so no, I didn't spend much 'cash' and nor did I think I was too old to take a different path, at 21. I realised I didn't want to be a barrister (original plan) and that I missed using my languages and went on to train as a legal translator and work in a different field. I love how you find this so unbelievable. I know people who did medical degrees and realised they didn't want to be doctors. Strange, isn't it, that you don't know exactly what you want to do with your life at the age of 17?

So you finished your degree and never done the exams to become a solicitor or baristar? So you spent 4 years studying your ass off and when it was done you just walked away? SO you have a degree but your not qualified in Law?

Loads of people do a law degree (or, like me law plus a language) as a basis for another career. I didn't just 'walk away', I did some more training and became a legal translator! Sorry you seem to think this is on a par with being a binman. You are aware that being a legal translator is a well regarded and well paid profession? Do you honestly think the vast majority of law undergraduates become solicitors and barristers? Many of them don't even have that intention when they start the course. You're very ill informed.

Appledreams15

Appledreams15 wrote:

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Of course you do.

Appledreams15 wrote:

Men know that women are suffering, right?

Women know that men are too?

It's almost as if PEOPLE are suffering. Its just that you think you deserve special attention because you are a woman.

I tend to look at in on a case by case basis, not as a gender thing.

But that's me being sexist

erudec

spurious wrote: »

Well there you go. Two hours not long to discuss I would have thought.

Well, it's long enough to come to the only conclusion that matters: has the defence established reasonable doubt.

They did, with bells on. A conviction with so much reasonable doubt would have been an outrage of injustice.

irishrebe

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Mr.H wrote: »

So you were about 20 when you finished your law degree?? I dont know many people who spend all that time and cash to study law and give it up to be a freelance translator with "no skills". Seems like an expensive hobby

Its none of your business why anyone does not choose to use a degree or work in the field of their degree . It also had nothing whatsoever ever to do with this thread  why a poster chooses a certain path in life

Oh but it does when they're trying to accuse me of being a liar because they think no law graduate would ever stoop to being a lowly translator! LOL!

Blud

Blud wrote: »

Honestly, the state of some of the posts grappling with this. Happy to be going home soon.

Because it's splitting hairs. :rolleyes:

GreeBo

kylith wrote: »

Let me put it this way.

You come home and see one of your neighbours leaving your house with your cashbox. You make a complaint to the Gardaí and it goes to trial. At the trial your neighbour is found not guilty because they couldn't find your cashbox and so there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury 100% that he did it.

Your neighbour is not innocent of stealing from you, but has been found not guilty because the theft could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

Are you explaining that to me?

Mr.H

irishrebe wrote: »

You do realise, BTW, that a law degree is a standard requirement for a legal translator? Not sure why you seem to think I wasted my degree. I'm using it. I don't get the thinking around here, at all.

Because you hid the law degree from your original post but now all of a sudden remembered you had one because you got caught lying. Then apparently its not expensive to study law............ it is I assure you very very very expensive. Books and equipment as well as living expenses while you study 24/7 and not able to work at the same time to pay rent and food. I lived with a law student it takes a long time.

Then of course you would have had to go to college when you were 17 which is common so thats ok. But then before you can sit actual exams and stuff you must do a three year apprenticeship. Then there are countless exams before being anywhere near remotely qualified. Now of course you could have just got your degree or even diploma and left to pursue your adventure as a translator but then again you could have done a humanitarian degree which would have been far less time consuming and would have allowed you to brush up on languages.

SO you can see why people dont believe you law story?

Sprinter Sacre

kylith wrote: »

Let me put it this way.

You come home and see one of your neighbours leaving your house with your cashbox. You make a complaint to the Gardand it goes to trial. At the trial your neighbour is found not guilty because they couldn't find your cashbox and so there wasn't enough evidence to convince the jury 100% that he did it.

Your neighbour is not innocent of stealing from you, but has been found not guilty because the theft could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent.

Why are people comparing the likes of the story above with a rape. To make such a comparison you'd have to assume she was raped which isn't the case.

What might a be more appropriate is seeing your neighbour leave your house. Later on you find a belonging is missing. It might be likely that your neighbour is responsible but in reality only the neighbour knows.

Is it possible this woman was attacked and humiliated? Yes it is. Was it possible she was raped? From the evidence and the case presented and the verdict given, no. These lads entered the court innocent, and left the court innocent. For that to change a verdict of guilty has to be given.

kylith

GreeBo wrote: »

Are you explaining that to me?

The post I quoted said that 'not guilty == innocent', which I took to mean you were equating being not guilty with being innocent. If I was incorrect I apologise.

erudec

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I have heard from a few men today 'who cares'.

When you look at how viciously women are treated in many parts of the world, you'd wonder where this viciousness towards women originated?

Sometimes I feel like I am living in a nightmare.

Men know that women are suffering, right?

I know it is conceptually hard for me to put myself in the shoes of someone suffering racism, I think that is why men turn a blind eye to all the abuse women receive.

Please try and think of what your fellow human beings are suffering. I spoke to another girl crying about being raped at the rally today.

We're talking about one woman here, not all the women in the world, or all the rape victims.

The woman in that trial probably was not raped. Even if this was a civil standard of proof, the accused should get off.

They had consensual sex, then the girl panicked when she thought someone had filmed it, so she seems to have made a false claim of rape.

CFlat

blanch152 wrote: »

Making the differentiation is unfair to the accused.

It is equivalent to saying there is no smoke without fire.

It's all the 'guilty until proven guilty' brigade have to cling to. Let them off, the legal system won't be influenced by them anyway.

Absolutely correct decision IMO and all those lads should be reinstated back into their rugby careers without delay. That lady has done them enough damage.

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it's splitting hairs. :rolleyes:

And thats the problem.
Its not splitting hairs, its a major, vitally important lack of understanding of how the legal system works and what you, as a juror are expected to do.

If you equate "not-guilty" with "proven innocent" then there is the danger that you will convict someone simply because they cannot prove their innocence.