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

hill16bhoy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This may be obvious to you and to me, but it clearly isn't obvious to many of the self-styled 'feminists' commenting publicly on this case today.



As far as I'm concerned, these two statements are synonymous. Found not guilty by a jury = factually not guilty. End of, unless further evidence comes to light. That's how our democracy functions and this is how it must function. The very concept of justice falls apart if it only applies in court, and not to the parties' lives and reputations thereafter. This goes both ways, of course - the people smearing the defendants today are on a direct par with the people queuing up to shake a rapist's hand just after a conviction a few years ago. I make no distinction when I regard the rulings of our justice system as facts in cases of guilt or innocence.

Yes, miscarriages of justice do happen. But for the public at large to assume hat an acquitted party is still guilty, is to deny that individual of their basic, fundamental human rights.

It's a fact that they were found not guilty.

But strong belief in guilt, in a criminal trial, still equals not guilty - we don't know where on that spectrum of not guilty the jury members found them to be.

I didn't say the verdict shouldn't be respected, I respect the rule of law, it should.

Given that, I think they should be allowed resume their careers, at Ulster too.

That doesn't mean I can't have a personal opinion that I believe the complainant told the truth or that I believe the defendants lied (it's a fact that at least some of them did during the case) or that the verdict is foolproof or a "fact".

It also doesn't mean that the protests that took place today weren't legitimate - I think there are a lot of legitimate things to protest after this trial.

Hotblack Desiato

Tsipras wrote: »

Are you a bit worried about your OH man?

I'm right behind most feminist causes, but not this one.

I've served on two juries*, I always thought that the evidence in this trial was flimsy and would likely be rejected by the jury.

Jury considers evidence - finds it sorely lacking - shock horror they acquit. They, including the three women on the jury, must be woman hating assholes :rolleyes:



* One of them was a rape trial - both of the parties involved were male...

_Whimsical_

Is anyone else very concerned by all the people in the media saying they'd never report a rape and would actively encourage a friend or relation not to do so?

I can fully understand the sentiment, I feel like it myself, but I feel it's very dangerous to verbalise it so much. If anything what we need to be saying is that we'll stand with victims and actively support them through any trial, that we'll try to lobby for better conditions for victims in this situation.

Right now it's as if we are declaring open season for rapists and criminals by telling them we'd all be too afraid to report them.

hill16bhoy

Silentcorner wrote: »

Does anyone know if they had been drinking before they got on that plane in south Africa? I read somewhere that they had....the amount of alcohol listed were what they had when they got back to Belfast...

I'd be interested to know how much they had to drink on the plane too and what sort of sleep they'd had over the previous couple of days.

The complainant had gone 30 hours without sleep by the time she was examined at the Rowan Centre and gave her first evidence to Dr. Lavery.

Fann Linn

professore wrote: »

The obsession with celebrity and sex is pathetic.

The difference being that the celebs wouldn't have been named down here. Hence the dash by NT, RTE, TV3 etc north of the border.

Silentcorner

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's a fact that they were found not guilty.

But strong belief in guilt, in a criminal trial, still equals not guilty - we don't know where on that spectrum of not guilty the jury members found them to be.

I didn't say the verdict shouldn't be respected, I respect the rule of law, it should.

Given that, I think they should be allowed resume their careers, at Ulster too.

That doesn't mean I can't have a personal opinion that I believe the complainant told the truth or that I believe the defendants lied (it's a fact that at least some of them did during the case) or that the verdict is foolproof or a "fact".

It also doesn't mean that the protests that took place today weren't legitimate - I think there are a lot of legitimate things to protest after this trial.

I completely agree....

I thought it was very unfair that the young lady had no legal representation at all and had to face a 12 person legal team...I am a fairly confident man in my 40s...that would unsettle me...

I thought it was very unfair that the 4 defendants were named in public....

I think the IRFU now finds itself in a very difficult position because of the timing of this verdict...

I believe that media shouldn't be allowed cover these trials...this was a circus...

I think, rape and sexual assault, in particular where it is non violent, is neigh on impossible to achieve the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict...

I believe that last point, will lead to a lot of genuine rapes/sexaul assaults will not now make it to court....

martingriff

The only think that I feel strange about this case was why was the 4 cases on together. I get the 2 on trial for the rape been together but I think the other 2 should have been tried seperatly

professore

kittensmittens wrote: »

Oh give over...there is always wriggle room to turn your head during that position unless you are totally restrained by the back of the head very forcibly at all times.
So unless you are saying he had her head RAMMED into the bed with full force. then it is totally physically possible.

Which is it? Head smashed down full force into the bed or face forward in the bed with ability to look behind over the shoulder? Cant be both

There's wriggle room if you are having consensual sex. If you're frozen with fear you aren't going to be turning around looking people confidently in the eye and telling another person no means no. And this is not taking in account the 4 other points I made from 5 minutes reading her testimony. And I'm no solicitor. Her story is full of holes. Maybe she was too drunk to remember it properly, but it is really inconsistent.

Now if she had said she was having consensual sex with Paddy Jackson, having taken off her trousers, and Olding came in and shoved his dick in her mouth, that makes a lot more sense. As it is described her testimony it doesn't add up at all. It's just not credible.

Fann Linn

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Is anyone else very concerned by all the people in the media saying they'd never report a rape and would actively encourage a friend or relation not to do so?

I can fully understand the sentiment, I feel like it myself, but I feel it's very dangerous to verbalise it so much. If anything what we need to be saying is that we'll stand with victims and actively support them through any trial, that we'll try to lobby for better conditions for victims in this situation.

Right now it's as if we are declaring open season for rapists and criminals by telling them we'd all be too afraid to report them.

Not worried at all about Fiona Looney, Terry Prone, LON etc.

professore

Silentcorner wrote: »

I completely agree....

I thought it was very unfair that the young lady had no legal representation at all and had to face a 12 person legal team...I am a fairly confident man in my 40s...that would unsettle me...

I thought it was very unfair that the 4 defendants were named in public....

I think the IRFU now finds itself in a very difficult position because of the timing of this verdict...

I believe that media shouldn't be allowed cover these trials...this was a circus...

I think, rape and sexual assault, in particular where it is non violent, is neigh on impossible to achieve the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict...

I believe that last point, will lead to a lot of genuine rapes/sexaul assaults will not now make it to court....

I agree with all of that too.

Silentcorner

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Is anyone else very concerned by all the people in the media saying they'd never report a rape and would actively encourage a friend or relation not to do so?

I can fully understand the sentiment, I feel like it myself, but I feel it's very dangerous to verbalise it so much. If anything what we need to be saying is that we'll stand with victims and actively support them through any trial, that we'll try to lobby for better conditions for victims in this situation.

Right now it's as if we are declaring open season for rapists and criminals by telling them we'd all be too afraid to report them.

It is a persons civic duty to report crimes...as hard as it might be...

But can you honestly expect women to report rape/sexual assault when they now know what is ahead of them?

Rubberchikken

Is it a common enough thing nowadays for guys to want to have sex with a woman and have their friend/friends taking part/looking on also?
Is this a porn thing and these 20 somethings exposure to same means they know nothing else?
Are some girls so enamoured with these 'sportsmen' that they will hang out on the same social areas?

Personally i find the whole lot of them tiresome. How any one can behave as they have (male and female) with what appears to be no respect for either themselves or anyone else is worrisome.

The idea that that guy could walk into the bedroom with his penis, according to court reporting, in his hand makes me despair. These are the future - heaven help us.

Tsipras

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Given that, I think they should be allowed resume their careers, at Ulster too.

You 'think' they should be allowed.
Jesus Christ, for those two men their lives have been almost ruined, they have been fairly and squarely acquitted of ANY guilt in a court of law, and you think they 'should' be allowed to resume a normal life.
Sorry I'm only picking your post because I just looked at it now but it's the tip of the iceberg with some of the bat-**** stuff I've seen.
Accused (but not found guilty / not charged / innocent) = GUILTY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Strazdas

professore wrote: »

There are far more cut and dried cases of rape out there than this one but no one cares about them. At the end of the day these men will still have flocks of women lining up to have sex with them...if anything more so than before. 50 shades was the last straw on that.

It's as much an indictment of our pathetic society - both men and women. The justice system is the only reasonable and honourable part of it.

The whole thing is bizarre and disgusting.

One thing that crosses my mind is whether Jackson, Olding and McIlroy had done this before (I'm a bit suspicious about Olding and McIlroy ending up in that bedroom completely uninvited and when there were still other women at the party downstairs). If so, they 'went to the well' once too often and it backfired in spectacular fashion.

_Whimsical_

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is a persons civic duty to report crimes...as hard as it might be...

But can you honestly expect women to report rape/sexual assault when they now know what is ahead of them?

No I can't, I feel the same myself as a woman. Men are raped much much less but it does happen, it's an issue for them too.
I feel like we just can't afford to go out roaring that we are too afraid either though, unfortunately the greatest deterrents we have against rape is reporting, the fear of punishment, the loss of social standing and shame. If no one reports these deterrents no longer exist. It's a dangerous rallying cry right now. We need a different one. Maybe it needs to be that we offer greater support to victims in the legal system and society too, maybe something else, but right now we are leading up a dangerous path.

professore

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Is it a common enough thing nowadays for guys to want to have sex with a woman and have their friend/friends taking part/looking on also?
Is this a porn thing and these 20 somethings exposure to same means they know nothing else?
Are some girls so enamoured with these 'sportsmen' that they will hang out on the same social areas?

Personally i find the whole lot of them tiresome. How any one can behave as they have (male and female) with what appears to be no respect for either themselves or anyone else is worrisome.

The idea that that guy could walk into the bedroom with his penis, according to court reporting, in his hand makes me despair. These are the future - heaven help us.

I'm with you. Everyone knows the reputation rugby players and the women that hang around with them. have. Read Ross O Carroll Kelly FFS. He nails it. I only hope the likes of Paul O Connell, Ronan O Gara etc.are not like that.

Tsipras

Strazdas wrote: »

professore wrote: »

There are far more cut and dried cases of rape out there than this one but no one cares about them. At the end of the day these men will still have flocks of women lining up to have sex with them...if anything more so than before. 50 shades was the last straw on that.

It's as much an indictment of our pathetic society - both men and women. The justice system is the only reasonable and honourable part of it.

The whole thing is bizarre and disgusting.

One thing that crosses my mind is whether Jackson, Olding and McIlroy had done this before (I'm a bit suspicious about Olding and McIlroy ending up in that bedroom completely uninvited and when there were still other women at the party downstairs). If so, they 'went to the well' once too often and it backfired in spectacular fashion.

What does it matter if they had a threesome before?

Strazdas

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Is it a common enough thing nowadays for guys to want to have sex with a woman and have their friend/friends taking part/looking on also?
Is this a porn thing and these 20 somethings exposure to same means they know nothing else?
Are some girls so enamoured with these 'sportsmen' that they will hang out on the same social areas?

Personally i find the whole lot of them tiresome. How any one can behave as they have (male and female) with what appears to be no respect for either themselves or anyone else is worrisome.

The idea that that guy could walk into the bedroom with his penis, according to court reporting, in his hand makes me despair. These are the future - heaven help us.

I've heard a lot of speculation that porn may indeed be a factor in all this.

George Best was a known womaniser and yet there is zero evidence he ever had another man in a bedroom with him when he was with a woman. This type of thing seems a more recent development.

Silentcorner

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

No I can't, I feel the same myself as a woman. Men are raped much much less but it does happen, it's an issue for them too.
I feel like we just can't afford to go out roaring that we are too afraid either though, unfortunately the greatest deterrents we have against rape is reporting, the fear of punishment, the loss of social standing and shame. If no one reports these deterrents no longer exist. It's a dangerous rallying cry right now. We need a different one. Maybe it needs to be that we offer greater support to victims in the legal system and society too, maybe something else, but right now we are leading up a dangerous path.

I wholeheartedly agree with you...it is dangerous...

But you'll see...the amount of pending cases that will collapse over the next few months will paint a very depressing picture...

Like I said in an earlier post...nobody won yesterday...(apart from media organisations)

We shouldn't know these peoples names or anything else other than a verdict...it is not in the public interest...

Strazdas

Tsipras wrote: »

What does it matter if they had a threesome before?

Asking for trouble maybe? Rape or no rape, this incident has turned into a complete disaster for them. Maybe if those other two eejits had stayed away from that bedroom, we would never have heard about any of this.

retro:electro

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

No I can't, I feel the same myself as a woman. Men are raped much much less but it does happen, it's an issue for them too.
I feel like we just can't afford to go out roaring that we are too afraid either though, unfortunately the greatest deterrents we have against rape is reporting, the fear of punishment, the loss of social standing and shame. If no one reports these deterrents no longer exist. It's a dangerous rallying cry right now. We need a different one. Maybe it needs to be that we offer greater support to victims in the legal system and society too, maybe something else, but right now we are leading up a dangerous path.

I totally agree. For every #ibelieveher hashtag I see there’s another telling women not to report because this will be the result. Why would you want to discourage women from reporting a rape? Why do them such a disservice and strip of services, supports and listeners? They should be telling women not to be afraid, don’t be discouraged by this and always report. Such irresponsible bs being spouted from arseholes trying to be subversive

hill16bhoy

Silentcorner wrote: »

I completely agree....

I thought it was very unfair that the young lady had no legal representation at all and had to face a 12 person legal team...I am a fairly confident man in my 40s...that would unsettle me...

I thought it was very unfair that the 4 defendants were named in public....

I think the IRFU now finds itself in a very difficult position because of the timing of this verdict...

I believe that media shouldn't be allowed cover these trials...this was a circus...

I think, rape and sexual assault, in particular where it is non violent, is neigh on impossible to achieve the standard of proof required for a guilty verdict...

I believe that last point, will lead to a lot of genuine rapes/sexaul assaults will not now make it to court....

There are arguments for and against naming defendants in rape trials. The UK granted anonymity to such defendants between 1976 and 1988.

The main argument for naming them is that it encourages victims of serial rapists to come forward.

But one can obviously see the downsides too. It's a balance. I think I favour naming defendants, but there is no perfect system.

In this case, I don't see how the identity of the defendants could ever have remained anonymous. Tom Humphries was supposed to be anonymous until he pleaded guilty, but the whole country knew what was going on within a few weeks of him stopping writing for the Irish Times in 2011.

This case was a perfect storm. The celebrity status of the defendants made it a circus. The courtroom has the largest public gallery in Northern Ireland if not the whole island.

The complainant was named in court and shown on screens. In a town like Belfast, her anonymity never stood a chance of surviving.

The fact that there were four defendants multiplied the cross examination time she had to face compared to a trial with only one defendant.

It was about as daunting a task as a complainant could have faced.

Tsipras

Strazdas wrote: »

Tsipras wrote: »

What does it matter if they had a threesome before?

Asking for trouble maybe? Rape or no rape, this incident has turned into a complete disaster for them. Maybe if those other two eejits had stayed away from that bedroom, we would never have heard about any of this.

So she was happy having sex with PJ but not the second lad? Didn't say that in court

hill16bhoy

Tsipras wrote: »

You 'think' they should be allowed.
Jesus Christ, for those two men their lives have been almost ruined, they have been fairly and squarely acquitted of ANY guilt in a court of law, and you think they 'should' be allowed to resume a normal life.
Sorry I'm only picking your post because I just looked at it now but it's the tip of the iceberg with some of the bat-**** stuff I've seen.
Accused (but not found guilty / not charged / innocent) = GUILTY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Jackson and Olding's employers have not reinstated them immediately.

So clearly they are having a serious think before deciding what happens with them.

martingriff

Tsipras wrote: »

You 'think' they should be allowed.
Jesus Christ, for those two men their lives have been almost ruined, they have been fairly and squarely acquitted of ANY guilt in a court of law, and you think they 'should' be allowed to resume a normal life.
Sorry I'm only picking your post because I just looked at it now but it's the tip of the iceberg with some of the bat-**** stuff I've seen.
Accused (but not found guilty / not charged / innocent) = GUILTY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Ì have a feeling you are picking up this person's text wrong and trying to be outraged by it. They are found not guilty and as such should (they used think but same thing) be allowed to play the sport. Nothing wrong with that

_Whimsical_

Tsipras wrote: »

So she was happy having sex with PJ but not the second lad? Didn't say that in court

She very strongly said she didn't want sex with PJ and told him that. Her description of what happened was very vivid and believable, down to her pants being so tight that he pulled them down but couldn't pull them off her legs and with them half down and very tight she could not get away from him physically.

Yamanoto

Great to see so many citizens turn out to express their abhorrence of due process running its course on these islands.

Bodes well.

I found this to be an excellent report of whole trial. Unbiased, not noticeably sensationalist or passionate, just an overview of the trial without an agenda.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

It's a long read. However if you are making judgements or comments about this case, no doubt you'll want to get all the information you can get about it and reading won't be a problem for you.

Tsipras

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Tsipras wrote: »

You 'think' they should be allowed.
Jesus Christ, for those two men their lives have been almost ruined, they have been fairly and squarely acquitted of ANY guilt in a court of law, and you think they 'should' be allowed to resume a normal life.
Sorry I'm only picking your post because I just looked at it now but it's the tip of the iceberg with some of the bat-**** stuff I've seen.
Accused (but not found guilty / not charged / innocent) = GUILTY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Jackson and Olding's employers have not reinstated them immediately.

So clearly they are having a serious think before deciding what happens with them.

If they don't they're spineless cowards

martingriff

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Jackson and Olding's employers have not reinstated them immediately.

So clearly they are having a serious think before deciding what happens with them.

I think it's to cover there ass kind of thing. They should have said nothing though. With the amount of time they were off I would not have expected to see them this season anyway

RabbleRouser2k

Strazdas wrote: »

I've heard a lot of speculation that porn may indeed be a factor in all this.

George Best was a known womaniser and yet there is zero evidence he ever had another man in a bedroom with him when he was with a woman. This type of thing seems a more recent development.

Porn doesn't make someone do those things-they have their own choice, their own agency.

It's the same crud people try and blame video games for.

hill16bhoy

Yamanoto wrote: »

Great to see so many citizens turn out to express their abhorrence of due process running its course on these islands.

Bodes well.

You might not like it, but a right to protest is a fundamental part of democracy.

Protests at trial verdicts are not a new thing either. They've been going on for pretty much as long as trials have existed.

And I highly doubt the protests were just at the verdict - there were likely a lot of people there who could accept the verdict but wanted to protest about related issues raised by the trial.

qwerty ui op

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Is it a common enough thing nowadays for guys to want to have sex with a woman and have their friend/friends taking part/looking on also?

I doubt it happens any more than it did 20/30 years ago

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Is this a porn thing and these 20 somethings exposure to same means they know nothing else?
Are some girls so enamoured with these 'sportsmen' that they will hang out on the same social areas?

Personally i find the whole lot of them tiresome. How any one can behave as they have (male and female) with what appears to be no respect for either themselves or anyone else is worrisome.

The idea that that guy could walk into the bedroom with his penis, according to court reporting, in his hand makes me despair. These are the future - heaven help us.

There nothing I've read of heard to say it is a thing nowadays.
Talking about the general conduct, I'd remember several stories like this in GAA circles going back 20 years but it was the extreme end of things and it was only a small minority behaved in this way. Like the men in question it was also early twenties things got a little crazy they'd cop-on as they went into later twenties. Just like today you'd have few women acting like this.

backspin.

Tsipras wrote: »

If they don't they're spineless cowards

The language they used alone about her would be enough to get many men sacked in this country these days. Plus the pressure that any sponsors of Ulster Rugby or Irish Rugby would come under if they take them back would be immense. Feminism has decided those guys are finished.

RabbleRouser2k

qwerty ui op wrote: »

I doubt it happens any more than it did 20/30 years ago


There nothing I've read of heard to say it is a thing nowadays.
Talking about the general conduct, I'd remember several stories like this in GAA circles going back 20 years but it was the extreme end of things and it was only a small minority behaved in this way. Like the men in question it was also early twenties this got a little crazy they'd cop-on as the went into later twenties. Just like today you'd have few women acting like this.

I'd love to say ppl 'cop on' as time goes on-but nope, I know plenty twice and more the age of those guys, who carry on with such behaviour.

I've known women too, who were unbelievably idiotic, with reckless behaviour. Stuff that as a teen I knew not to do, they're in 30s and 40s and being reckless. The minimum 'bad behaviour' they do involves going on binges during the week, then driving into work/ going on drives, while hungover and wearing sunglasses.

You want to say 'come to your senses' but then you're greeted with hostility.

backspin. wrote: »

The language they used alone about her would be enough to get many men sacked in this country these days. Plus the pressure that any sponsors of Ulster Rugby or Irish Rugby would come under if they take them back would be immense. Feminism has decided those guys are finished.

Morality is different to feminism-I have an issue with what they said, and I'm no feminist.

Faugheen

Tsipras wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Tsipras wrote: »

You 'think' they should be allowed.
Jesus Christ, for those two men their lives have been almost ruined, they have been fairly and squarely acquitted of ANY guilt in a court of law, and you think they 'should' be allowed to resume a normal life.
Sorry I'm only picking your post because I just looked at it now but it's the tip of the iceberg with some of the bat-**** stuff I've seen.
Accused (but not found guilty / not charged / innocent) = GUILTY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Jackson and Olding's employers have not reinstated them immediately.

So clearly they are having a serious think before deciding what happens with them.

If they don't they're spineless cowards

If I behaved in a way that brought the company I work for into disrepute with clients/customers then I would be sacked.

They weren't found guilty but their behaviour was deplorable and, unfortunately for them, they're in the public eye which shines a light on how they act and how they treat and talk about women.

There is every possibility that they lose their jobs over those messages alone and that one is on them, nobody else.

oneilla

martingriff wrote: »

The only think that I feel strange about this case was why was the 4 cases on together. I get the 2 on trial for the rape been together but I think the other 2 should have been tried seperatly

Thought it was strange myself that they prosecuted all 4 in the one trial. She had only made the complaint to police against Paddy Jackson.

qwerty ui op

Tsipras wrote: »

If they don't they're spineless cowards

What do you think of Olding and Jackson?

prinzeugen

Faugheen wrote: »

If I behaved in a way that brought the company I work for into disrepute with clients/customers then I would be sacked.

They weren't found guilty but their behaviour was deplorable and, unfortunately for them, they're in the public eye which shines a light on how they act and how they treat and talk about women.

There is every possibility that they lose their jobs over those messages alone and that one is on them, nobody else.

I would be surprised if they play for Ulster again but the IRFU needs to think carefully about this.

At the end of the day, the were found not guilty (innocent) of the crime, but the Snapchat could kill international careers.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Some crazy stuff along with some comebacks and banter on Twitter the last day or so.

Being level headed seems to be an old fashioned concept these days.

Faugheen

prinzeugen wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

If I behaved in a way that brought the company I work for into disrepute with clients/customers then I would be sacked.

They weren't found guilty but their behaviour was deplorable and, unfortunately for them, they're in the public eye which shines a light on how they act and how they treat and talk about women.

There is every possibility that they lose their jobs over those messages alone and that one is on them, nobody else.

I would be surprised if they play for Ulster again but the IRFU needs to think carefully about this.

At the end of the day, the were found not guilty (innocent) of the crime, but the Snapchat could kill international careers.

I'm sure they will which is why they're holding a review. I would imagine (and this is speculation on my part) there is conduct/behaviour clauses in their contracts to cover the employer.

That's my point about the WhatsApps, that's enough to show their contempt and I believe there's another Ulster player in one of those groups who's in trouble also.

At the end of the day, money talks and if sponsors don't want to be associated with them then that will be that.

It's been heavily rumoured both of them are on their way to Exeter anyway.

boege

Faugheen wrote: »

It's been heavily rumoured both of them are on their way to Exeter anyway.

This is probably the most likely managed solution being worked out in the background. Lads get to play and earn a crust but get away from the north and cannot play for Ireland...( if I understand that rule correctly?).

Nesta99

prinzeugen wrote: »

I would be surprised if they play for Ulster again but the IRFU needs to think carefully about this.

At the end of the day, the were found not guilty (innocent) of the crime, but the Snapchat could kill international careers.

The IRFU will suspend them indefinitely for breaking the code of conduct. They will probably just not be selected again then. The issue is if the central contracts are not renewed the IRFU could be open to a law suit from the 2 players as they were found not guilty. Its a problem for them. Id imagine a lot will depend on whether endorsements are withdrawn from the players and therefore any damage to the reputation to the IRFU could mitigate against future legal action if contracts are let run out. Off to France with Jackson would fit as he'd keep a good salary in the game and the IRFU can then not select him under their non home based players policy.

gormdubhgorm

James Bond Junior wrote: »

Their careers have probably been ended either way. There are no winners here.

For the rugby lads maybe. (If they were soccer players it would have enhanced thier status)
For the woman, I am not sure there could be books and appearances on the late late.
Maybe even a video might be 'leaked' in future?

Laois_Man

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

For the rugby lads maybe. (If they were soccer players it would have enhanced thier status)
For the woman, I am not sure there could be books and appearances on the late late.
Maybe even a video might be 'leaked' in future?

Don't be ridiculous. Neither any publisher nor RTE will entertain an idea like publishing/broadcasting accusations which the accused have been found not guilty of. It's libelous! Also there have been no suggestions (so far) that the accuser would wish to comprise her anonymity any more than it already has been.

lukesmom

Why should they leave? They have done nothing wrong. Yes the texts were unfortunate, but they were private texts between friends. There is no way that they should be shipped off the Exeter to play all because of some texts and because they engaged in a threesome. If the witness hadn't of caught them all in the act I don't suppose we would all be talking about it now. Its really unfair that their lives have been ruined like this. They should be kept on their team to show a message to people that you cannot falsely accuse somebody of rape and get anything out of it.

Laois_Man

lukesmom wrote: »

Yes the texts were unfortunate

A lot is made of those texts. I had to revise their exact content. In fact, it is the first time I have seen their exact content laid out in a timeline like this. But the conclusion has to be that they are not equally guilty of the same level of misogynistic behaviors in those texts. Jackson doesn't come out of it as bad as a couple of others.

Muahahaha

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Is anyone else very concerned by all the people in the media saying they'd never report a rape and would actively encourage a friend or relation not to do so?

I can fully understand the sentiment, I feel like it myself, but I feel it's very dangerous to verbalise it so much. .

Agree with this, especially Fiona Looney coming out and saying it on TV last night about her daughter. Without realising it Looney has just given a massive green light to any serial rapist out there looking for an easy target.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Is it a common enough thing nowadays for guys to want to have sex with a woman and have their friend/friends taking part/looking on also?
Is this a porn thing and these 20 somethings exposure to same means they know nothing else?
Are some girls so enamoured with these 'sportsmen' that they will hang out on the same social areas?

I agree that the porn produced over the last decade must have some influence on the growing prevalence of group sex in society. 3somes in porn was a niche market back in the 90s, nowadays 3somes/gang bangs are all over porn sites.

As regards sportsmen and girls yes it is very prevalent in professional sports. Just as an example I have a close friend whose cousin plays underage football for Spurs in London. I have been at one of his training sessions where he was playing. Despite us being out in a muddy wet field there was lots of young girls 17, 18 years of age watching this training session whilst dressed up as if they were going to a night club. It was obvious to me that these girls are trying to bag themselves a Premier League footballer. The WAG lifestyle has been glamourised and these young girls want to be a WAG, they see it as an easy way to get all the riches and lifestyle they desire. Personally I think it is sad but it is also very much reality.

Strazdas wrote: »

One thing that crosses my mind is whether Jackson, Olding and McIlroy had done this before (I'm a bit suspicious about Olding and McIlroy ending up in that bedroom completely uninvited and when there were still other women at the party downstairs). If so, they 'went to the well' once too often and it backfired in spectacular fashion.

The trial produced text messages where the defendants boasted about spit roasting another girl the very night after they did it with the complainant. I would be almost certain that this was a regular feature of their nights out but on this occasion it back fired on them. As I said in another post last night I get the impression that their strategy was to just spring the threesome idea on a girl, i.e. man 1 begins, then man 2 walks in, wink, wink, then shortly after that man 3. That seems to have been their modus operandi, they would just surprise the girl when she was already naked and they made a big assumption that every girl would be fine with it.

_Whimsical_

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

For the rugby lads maybe. (If they were soccer players it would have enhanced thier status)
For the woman, I am not sure there could be books and appearances on the late late.
Maybe even a video might be 'leaked' in future?

That's a very depressing underlying assumption about her character and motives, none of which there is a basis to question. Even one of them accused in their statement acknowledged she was deeply upset and that her perception of events may have been different to his.
This was a 19 year old with a place in University to study medicine, not a hackneyed old hand at status hunting.
Had she been inclined she could have sold her story of a threesome to any tabloid in the country, had her late late show moment without suffering the utter indignity that she did in the trial.

Muahahaha

lukesmom wrote: »

Why should they leave? They have done nothing wrong. Yes the texts were unfortunate, but they were private texts between friends.

The operative words being were private. They arent private anymore and people cannot unsee what they have already seen.

As regards calling the texts unfortunate I think they were far more serious than that. They revealed that these lads see women as sluts and who are there to please them. They degraded and humiliated her. There is nothing illegal about that but the sponsors of Ulster Rugby will be running a mile from any association with their behaviour. Sponsors pay good money to be associated with sports but the last thing they want is players alienating half the population that they are targeting their products at.

It may not be fair given they have been found not guilty but it is the reality of the situation.