Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

Indeed....

We saw this week details that the defence successfully argued should not be presented to the jury...there were literally dozens of other legal arguments that the defence made in an attempt to get the judge to direct the jury to acquit.

See that is the job of the defence, normally one barrister and maybe one other solicitor/junior counsel....in this case there was a legal team of 12!!!!!! 12, including 4 barristers....who have argued every minute detail in this case in an attempt to collapse the trial...before the case made it to court it was the object of a number of different motions....

If you think this case should never have gone court you must believe that there was some other dark force behind it...requiring you to jump through yet another hoop in the desperate attempt to believe the lads were hard done by...

But like you correctly said...there is none so blind as those who cannot see!

Each barrister argued the case for the piece of evidence relating to their client.

Like Faugheen, Grayson etc you are sensationalising what actually happened.

'12 big bad barristers intimidating the lady judge'...that how it goes?

tretorn

Silentcorner wrote: »

Indeed....

We saw this week details that the defence successfully argued should not be presented to the jury...there were literally dozens of other legal arguments that the defence made in an attempt to get the judge to direct the jury to acquit.

See that is the job of the defence, normally one barrister and maybe one other solicitor/junior counsel....in this case there was a legal team of 12!!!!!! 12, including 4 barristers....who have argued every minute detail in this case in an attempt to collapse the trial...before the case made it to court it was the object of a number of different motions....

If you think this case should never have gone court you must believe that there was some other dark force behind it...requiring you to jump through yet another hoop in the desperate attempt to believe the lads were hard done by...

But like you correctly said...there is none so blind as those who cannot see!

Yes, I do think some power was behind the decision, the case was so full of holes it was like a sieve.

It was very strnage for the PPS to come out afterwards with such a biased statement, they couldnt praise the woman enough for her bravery in coming forward but yet she was humiliated by the jurys decision, nothing to see here, let the men go.

Its not normal for the PPS to make statements after cases or at least I dont think so anyway, its highly inappropriate, the PPS should have been apologising to Jackson and Olding for what they had been put through because this case was allowed to go to trial.

What was so special about this case that the PPS came out and made a public statement about it.

ArthurDayne

meeeeh wrote: »

No but it should be up to employer weather they want to employ someone who harms their business. Nobody is calling for a law.

What? So now we are just forgetting all the talk about morality and decency and sexism -- and it has now become a purely commercial decision ?

That's arguably even more cynical than the made-up law! So let's say I'm a football player and I say something in private along the lines of 'all women who wear miniskirts are dirty sluts and should be made to wear a burkha in public at all times' -- what if these comments get out but millions of fundamentalist Muslims, including women, think 'wow what a great guy' and they all start supporting and pumping money into the club and its merchandise.

Should I get a pay rise?

Yeah_Right

tretorn wrote: »

The absolute neck of the Bank Of Ireland to lecture anyone about morals, their greed brought this country to its knees and not one of those overpaid **** saw the inside of a prison cell.

Will I be arrested for calling someone a wanker, wanker is a derogatory term for a man who is otherwise known as a dick.

I think wanker is a highly offensive term and its degrading to men everywhere. I am offended on behalf of all men and I demand that you be fired from your job. Even if you apologise.

Fann Linn

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think wanker is a highly offensive term and its degrading to men everywhere. I am offended on behalf of all men and I demand that you be fired from your job. Even if you apologise.

No he's okay. He didn't send it in a private text to his mates.

FrancieBrady

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I think wanker is a highly offensive term and its degrading to men everywhere. I am offended on behalf of all men and I demand that you be fired from your job. Even if you apologise.

Love Board's ****!

Roger Hassenforder

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Love Board's ****!

in before the
"**** Love Boards"

Silentcorner

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Each barrister argued the case for the piece of evidence relating to their client.

Like Faugheen, Grayson etc you are sensationalising what actually happened.

'12 big bad barristers intimidating the lady judge'...that how it goes?

Ya, that is exactly what I said.

If you wish to flippantly believe that the size of the legal team is meaningless to proceedings then you underestimate the money these guys charge.

I didn't say 12 big bad barristers....anywhere!!!

It was not for want of trying that the trial made it to the very end, in alleged rape cases, that in itself is quiet rare.

Let me guess...it waz the feminazis wot did it!!

Silentcorner

tretorn wrote: »

Yes, I do think some power was behind the decision, the case was so full of holes it was like a sieve.

It was very strnage for the PPS to come out afterwards with such a biased statement, they couldnt praise the woman enough for her bravery in coming forward but yet she was humiliated by the jurys decision, nothing to see here, let the men go.

Its not normal for the PPS to make statements after cases or at least I dont think so anyway, its highly inappropriate, the PPS should have been apologising to Jackson and Olding for what they had been put through because this case was allowed to go to trial.

What was so special about this case that the PPS came out and made a public statement about it.

Good article hear about it...

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/07/less-than-2-of-rape-trials-in-northern-ireland-end-in-conviction-why-the-system-needs-reformed/

This should be a seminal moment in how we conduct trials...this was a trial like no others.

Faugheen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

There was blood on his bed. Yes or No?

The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is.

I think we will all have to accept there was some blood on the sheets - how much I don’t know.

But that doesn’t make it rape.

Point out to me where I mentioned rape, please.

I've been saying that they left her bleeding and hysterical, which judging by the photographs and the statements from 3 of the four defendants, I would be correct, yes or no?

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ya, that is exactly what I said.

If you wish to flippantly believe that the size of the legal team is meaningless to proceedings then you underestimate the money these guys charge.

I didn't say 12 big bad barristers....anywhere!!!

It was not for want of trying that the trial made it to the very end, in alleged rape cases, that in itself is quiet rare.

Let me guess...it waz the feminazis wot did it!!

You certainly tried to create the impression it was 12 barristers against i prosecution barrister.

Nice try but it is sensationalism again, it was one barrister arguing about one piece of evidence on behalf of their client.
And the judge agreed with them on some of it. Standard procedure.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Point out to me where I mentioned rape, please.

I've been saying that they left her bleeding and hysterical, which judging by the photographs and the statements from 3 of the four defendants, I would be correct, yes or no?

Again, there is simply no evidence other than her own testimony that events in the bedroom left her hysterical.
None whatsoever.

Fann Linn

Couple of dozen protesters outside the ground this evening. Thought there would be more considering all the faux outrage on Twitter, FB etc.

FrancieBrady

Fann Linn wrote: »

Couple of dozen protesters outside the ground this evening. Thought there would be more considering all the faux outrage on Twitter, FB etc.

Seriously, is that all?

Where are you seeing that?

Fann Linn

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seriously, is that all?

Where are you seeing that?

On the Ulster thread here and news feeds.

Faugheen

tretorn wrote: »

Faugheen and a few more like him dont care whose blood it was.

Was her blood on the bed, yes or no?

They are implying the woman was left a bloody mess after the threesome which means great force was used on her.

I have said from the very beginning that she was left bleeding and hysterical.

Photographs, the doctor and Jackson himself have confirmed that she was bleeding.

Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and Rory Harrison acknowledged during or after the trial that she was upset.

Does the above make the statement that she left their company bleeding and hysterical true or false?

They are raging the all the blood found doesnt belong to the woman who alleged rape but the fact that its there is enough to paint Jackson as somebody who regularly injures women in his house.

I imagine you're going to back this up with evidence that I said any of this or are you just going to bumble and bluster.

I really, really hope Faugheen is never called for jury service involving any man accused of any crime whatsoever and particularly not the crime of rape. Faugheen not only would ignore factual evidence, he or she would make up evidence in order to justify themselves and everyone else on the jury to send an innocent person to jail.

Again, evidence where I said I would have found the men guilty.

I have said so many ****ing times that the verdict of Not Guilty was the right one.

If you actually read posts instead of reading what you wanted to read you would have seen that.

Faugheen is a very dangerous individual and its frightening that the PSNI and the PPS could bring such a ridiculous case, you would like to think the PPS would spot a case full of holes and thereby prevent the like of faugheen getting to pass judgment on anyone.

Don't call me a dangerous individual when you have absolutely no basis for it.

I have only ever given my opinion based off FACTS of this case and how it could affect Jackson and Olding's careers being restarted in Ireland.

Funny enough, they agree with me in the sense that the woman did not leave Jackson's house in a good state, yet you seem intent on disagreeing with it.

There are none so blind as though who wont see.

Oh the irony is strong on this statement.

Now, back up your accusations you've made about me or piss off and let the adults talk.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Was her blood on the bed, yes or no?



I have said from the very beginning that she was left bleeding and hysterical.

Photographs, the doctor and Jackson himself have confirmed that she was bleeding.

Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and Rory Harrison acknowledged during or after the trial that she was upset.

Does the above make the statement that she left their company bleeding and hysterical true or false?



I imagine you're going to back this up with evidence that I said any of this or are you just going to bumble and bluster.



Again, evidence where I said I would have found the men guilty.

I have said so many ****ing times that the verdict of Not Guilty was the right one.

If you actually read posts instead of reading what you wanted to read you would have seen that.



Don't call me a dangerous individual when you have absolutely no basis for it.

I have only ever given my opinion based off FACTS of this case and how it could affect Jackson and Olding's careers being restarted in Ireland.

Funny enough, they agree with me in the sense that the woman did not leave Jackson's house in a good state, yet you seem intent on disagreeing with it.



Oh the irony is strong on this statement.

Now, back up your accusations you've made about me or piss off and let the adults talk.

You got caught telling a downright lie in the first thread and disappeared for a while rather than admit it. I can go back and get the post if you wish.

You agreed with Grayson on this thread:

1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood. It wasn't, that is a lie. There was 'some' blood on the bed.

2. She RAN from the house CRYING. Again, didn't happen.

3. That the men joked about the above the next day. Again, a downright lie. They never mentioned the bed, blood or her running from the house crying.

FrancieBrady

Fann Linn wrote: »

On the Ulster thread here and news feeds.

Good to see so many families there.

Roger Hassenforder

Silentcorner wrote: »

Good article hear about it...

https://sluggerotoole.com/2018/04/07/less-than-2-of-rape-trials-in-northern-ireland-end-in-conviction-why-the-system-needs-reformed/

This should be a seminal moment in how we conduct trials...this was a trial like no others.

"we"?
Are you from Northern Ireland?

As for the 5 points, other than no. 4 and its references to toxic masculinity and rape culture, the author is right. northern Ireland has a long way to go.
meanwhile we in the Republic are streets ahead in this regard.
mean while not one mention of the presumption of innocence, only the inconvenient obstacle of "beyond reasonable doubt" to up the rates.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Was her blood on the bed, yes or no?



I have said from the very beginning that she was left bleeding and hysterical.

Photographs, the doctor and Jackson himself have confirmed that she was bleeding.

Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and Rory Harrison acknowledged during or after the trial that she was upset.

Does the above make the statement that she left their company bleeding and hysterical true or false?



I imagine you're going to back this up with evidence that I said any of this or are you just going to bumble and bluster.



Again, evidence where I said I would have found the men guilty.

I have said so many ****ing times that the verdict of Not Guilty was the right one.

If you actually read posts instead of reading what you wanted to read you would have seen that.



Don't call me a dangerous individual when you have absolutely no basis for it.

I have only ever given my opinion based off FACTS of this case and how it could affect Jackson and Olding's careers being restarted in Ireland.

Funny enough, they agree with me in the sense that the woman did not leave Jackson's house in a good state, yet you seem intent on disagreeing with it.



Oh the irony is strong on this statement.

Now, back up your accusations you've made about me or piss off and let the adults talk.

You got caught telling a downright lie in the first thread and disappeared for a while rather than admit it. I can go back and get the post if you wish.

You agreed with Grayson on this thread:

1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood. It wasn't, that is a lie. There was 'some' blood on the bed.

2. She RAN from the house CRYING. Again, didn't happen.

3. That the men joked about the above the next day. Again, a downright lie. They never mentioned the bed, blood or her running from the house crying.

Francie.

Blood on bed. Yes? No?

Don't think about the word 'covered'. I won't ask you again.

Did she leave the house upset? Yes or no? I won't ask you again.

Did the lads boast about a conquest which ultimately found the woman was treated like ****, yes or no? I've already said they probably didn't know about the blood, but Jackson did when he was lying in it and he's talking about spit roasts, so there's that.

Also, if I recall correctly, you have made reference to 'false allegations' which is sensationalising, no? At the very least it's untrue.

Answer my questions there now like a good boy, because so far you have refused to and thrown the same ****e at me.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Francie.

Blood on bed. Yes? No?

Don't think about the word 'covered'. I won't ask you again.

Did she leave the house upset? Yes or no? I won't ask you again.

Did the lads boast about a conquest which ultimately found the woman was treated like ****, yes or no? I've already said they probably didn't know about the blood, but Jackson did when he was lying in it and he's talking about spit roasts, so there's that.

Also, if I recall correctly, you have made reference to 'false allegations' which is sensationalising, no? At the very least it's untrue.

Answer my questions there now like a good boy, because so far you have refused to and thrown the same ****e at me.

Faugheen, you cannot take liberties with the truth...unless you have an agenda. And you plainly do.

Can you stand over these statements or not. Remember I know the details of the trial and I don't need you to tell me.

Take them one by one:


1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood.

2. She RAN from the house CRYING.

3. That the men joked about the above the next day.

Buford T. Justice XIX

tretorn wrote: »

Faugheen and a few more like him dont care whose blood it was.

They are implying the woman was left a bloody mess after the threesome which means great force was used on her.

They are raging the all the blood found doesnt belong to the woman who alleged rape but the fact that its there is enough to paint Jackson as somebody who regularly injures women in his house.

I really, really hope Faugheen is never called for jury service involving any man accused of any crime whatsoever and particularly not the crime of rape. Faugheen not only would ignore factual evidence, he or she would make up evidence in order to justify themselves and everyone else on the jury to send an innocent person to jail.

Faugheen is a very dangerous individual and its frightening that the PSNI and the PPS could bring such a ridiculous case, you would like to think the PPS would spot a case full of holes and thereby prevent the like of faugheen getting to pass judgment on anyone.

There are none so blind as though who wont see.

Mod note: tretorn, those are serious allegations to be making about anybody and constitute personal abuse.

Do not post in this thread again.

Buford T. Justice

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Francie.

Blood on bed. Yes? No?

Don't think about the word 'covered'. I won't ask you again.

Did she leave the house upset? Yes or no? I won't ask you again.

Did the lads boast about a conquest which ultimately found the woman was treated like ****, yes or no? I've already said they probably didn't know about the blood, but Jackson did when he was lying in it and he's talking about spit roasts, so there's that.

Also, if I recall correctly, you have made reference to 'false allegations' which is sensationalising, no? At the very least it's untrue.

Answer my questions there now like a good boy, because so far you have refused to and thrown the same ****e at me.

Faugheen, you cannot take liberties with the truth...unless you have an agenda. And you plainly do.

Can you stand over these statements or not. Remember I know the details of the trial and I don't need you to tell me.

Take them one by one:


1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood.

2. She RAN from the house CRYING.

3. That the men joked about the above the next day.

Answer my questions then, because I've answered yours numerous times and you have never answered any of mine.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Answer my questions then, because I've answered yours numerous times and you have never answered any of mine.

No, I will not answer your questions.

I know the true details of the case. I am asking about the impression you insist on giving of the case, namely:

1. That the bed was COVERED in HER blood.

2. She RAN from the house CRYING.

3. That the men joked about the above the next day.

Can you back up with facts the bolded bits or not?

Faugheen

Since you refuse to acknowledge and answer my questions, I won't be answering yours (for the 10th time).

I would kindly ask that you don't respond to one of my posts again since we're clearly going nowhere. You look a bit obsessed with my opinion and it's quite worrying.

Thanks.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Since you refuse to acknowledge and answer my questions, I won't be answering yours (for the 10th time).

I would kindly ask that you don't respond to one of my posts again since we're clearly going nowhere. You look a bit obsessed with my opinion and it's quite worrying.

Thanks.

I'll be keeping you and anyone else who wants to sensationalise the case, honest, Faugheen.

tritium

Silentcorner wrote: »

Indeed....

We saw this week details that the defence successfully argued should not be presented to the jury...there were literally dozens of other legal arguments that the defence made in an attempt to get the judge to direct the jury to acquit.

See that is the job of the defence, normally one barrister and maybe one other solicitor/junior counsel....in this case there was a legal team of 12!!!!!! 12, including 4 barristers....who have argued every minute detail in this case in an attempt to collapse the trial...before the case made it to court it was the object of a number of different motions....

If you think this case should never have gone court you must believe that there was some other dark force behind it...requiring you to jump through yet another hoop in the desperate attempt to believe the lads were hard done by...

But like you correctly said...there is none so blind as those who cannot see!

Oh for ****s sake. Of all the disreputable, dishonest slants we’ve seen put on how this case transpired that on really takes the biscuit

Care to acknowledge why there had to be four barristers?

Care to acknowledge who made to decision to carry out four trials together?

Setting a new low there. Utterly pathetic post

FrancieBrady

tritium wrote: »

Oh for ****s sake. Of all the disreputable, dishonest slants we’ve seen put on how this case transpired that on really takes the biscuit

Care to acknowledge why there had to be four barristers?

Care to acknowledge who made to decision to carry out four trials together?

Setting a new low there. Utterly pathetic post

This is all coming from people who 'accept the verdict' of course. :rolleyes:

tritium

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ya, that is exactly what I said.

If you wish to flippantly believe that the size of the legal team is meaningless to proceedings then you underestimate the money these guys charge.

I didn't say 12 big bad barristers....anywhere!!!

It was not for want of trying that the trial made it to the very end, in alleged rape cases, that in itself is quiet rare.

Let me guess...it waz the feminazis wot did it!!

What percentage of rape cases don’t make it the jury verdict or guilty plea? I’ll take to plus or minus 5%, with referencing, since you seem to have the numbers to hand


Just for reference see the following which has roughly a 10% overall rate across crimes in the UK- it even gives reasons
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2795049/Why-thousands-trials-collapse.html

NAGDEFI

Boards must have been busy in May 2002 with SAIPAN.

I'd imagine this must be the second most polarised issue on boards. Maybe i'm wrong but i can't think of anything off hand.

I mean the particular not guilty of rape thread which is a few weeks old, not like Repeal the 8th which kicked off almost a year ago.

BBDBB

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Boards must have been busy in May 2002 with SAIPAN.

I'd imagine this must be the second most polarised issue on boards. Maybe i'm wrong but i can't think of anything off hand.

I mean the particular not guilty of rape thread which is a few weeks old, not like Repeal the 8th which kicked off almost a year ago.

United Airlines throwing that dr off a flight was probably the last big one

Ps that security guard who got sacked is now suing for unfair dismissal as he wasn’t trained to deal with such a situation

NAGDEFI

BBDBB wrote: »

United Airlines throwing that dr off a flight was probably the last big one

Ps that security guard who got sacked is now suing for unfair dismissal as he wasn’t trained to deal with such a situation

I feel totally talked out on this particular topic

Some sort of closure for all concerned would be great now.

It's amazing how we follow news items like this, form our opinions yet none of us in any way actually know Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding or the girl at the centre of the case. We really know nothing of them as people, in simplistic language what's in their hearts. We try and gauge them in press conferences, through what they say etc.

Have i said things i regretted, absolutely. Do i think i'd ever say what they said, i don't think so. But make me a pro sports person, in a bubble, 20 years younger, everyone is speaking like this. And i'm sure maybe i would say stuff like that. Environment...

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I feel totally talked out on this particular topic

Some sort of closure for all concerned would be great now.

It's amazing how we follow news items like this, form our opinions yet none of us in any way actually know Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding or the girl at the centre of the case. We really know nothing of them as people, in simplistic language what's in their hearts. We try and gauge them in press conferences, through what they say etc.

Have i said things i regretted, absolutely. Do i think i'd ever say what they said, i don't think so. But make me a pro sports person, in a bubble, 20 years younger, everyone is speaking like this. And i'm sure maybe i would say stuff like that. Environment...

The test is not would you say what they said. It is: have you ever said anything privately that you would not say in public.

BBDBB

The IRFU are to make a statement tomorrow concerning their future.
rumours are abound that they are going to hang them out to dry, quite what that means I don’t know. Some here will no doubt rejoice. Which is also a pity as there are no winners in this situation as I’ve said from the very beginning

NAGDEFI

Then the questions of standards, example. The society we want to create with equality.

Have all parties suffered enough?

I simply don't know. At this point in my life i don't have the wisdom to pronounce.. maybe i never will. Maybe none of us ever will..

If you were Stuart Olding's mother and knew what he was going through.. If you were the complainant's parent? Questions without answers..

NAGDEFI

BBDBB wrote: »

The IRFU are to make a statement tomorrow concerning their future.
rumours are abound that they are going to hang them out to dry, quite what that means I don’t know. Some here will no doubt rejoice. Which is also a pity as there are no winners in this situation as I’ve said from the very beginning

Personally i have argued for some time break. But i don't feel happy hearing they're to be hung out to dry either.

No matter what way you look at Paddy Jackson, June 2016 heir apparent out half, 25 yrs old, March 2017 no Grand Slam and centre of a rape case. Found innocent but forever tainted. That's very sad.

Is there any middle ground... Senator Mitchell went home too soon..

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The test is not would you say what they said. It is: have you ever said anything privately that you would not say in public.

Honestly Francie i was never the type to say sexual stuff like 'Jaysus yer wan's a ride'. Now what i might say about someone who crossed me is 'jaysus i'll kill that bastard'. My fuse could be short with drink. I actually gave it up because it brought out a very aggressive side in me. Off it 15 yrs. And people who know me otherwise are shocked when i tell them as i'm usually affable.

When you look at it that way we all have our weaknesses in different areas.

So if i was a pro player i could have been the drunken brawler in younger days and everyone would say i was a tramp! And without drink i've never been in a scrap.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Honestly Francie i was never the type to say sexual stuff like 'Jaysus yer wan's a ride'. Now what i might say about someone who crossed me is 'jaysus i'll kill that bastard'. My fuse could be short with drink. I actually gave it up because it brought out a very aggressive side in me. Off it 15 yrs.

When you look at it that way we all have our weaknesses in different areas.

The essence of it is saying something you thought was private and having it plastered all over the media.

Doesn't even have to be sexual..

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The essence of it is saying something you thought was private and having it plastered all over the media.

Doesn't even have to be sexual..

The mortification alone would be something else, if you were basically a decent person. Now if an arrogant so and so, it might be water off a duck's back.

NAGDEFI

Just when i'm talking of drink and how it made me aggressive in male company i want to say i've never verbally, physically or in anyway disrespected a female, and i'm proud of that.

It was more the after match drinks with men situation.

So i never regretted giving up drink. I'm a far better person without it.

Wrongway1985

tretorn wrote: »

Piss off is a very rude term to use, I feel offended, where are the thought police, I want someone to pay because I feel offended.

Sad given the subject matter someone would use the thread for their own amusement even if it is AH.

AllForIt

I just heard on LBC that the players are to leave their club.

Silentcorner

tritium wrote: »

Oh for ****s sake. Of all the disreputable, dishonest slants we’ve seen put on how this case transpired that on really takes the biscuit

Care to acknowledge why there had to be four barristers?

Care to acknowledge who made to decision to carry out four trials together?

Setting a new low there. Utterly pathetic post

Oh for f##ks sake, I know full well why there was four barristers.

That fact remains it was unprecedented.

I know full well who made the decision to carry out the four trials together.

But there are some right nutters who think this case shouldn't have gone to court who'd want to take a look at themselves.

By doing that, you are inferring that this young woman either fooled them all, and by all I mean, the Rape Crisis Centre, The PSNI, The Crown Prosecutors office, who collectively managed to get this case all the way to the jury, despite the best efforts of the defense team.

Otherwise, start a thread in the conspiracy forum because that is where that nonsense belongs!

FrancieBrady

Silentcorner wrote: »

Oh for f##ks sake, I know full well why there was four barristers.

That fact remains it was unprecedented.

I know full well who made the decision to carry out the four trials together.

But there are some right nutters who think this case shouldn't have gone to court who'd want to take a look at themselves.

By doing that, you are inferring that this young woman either fooled them all, and by all I mean, the Rape Crisis Centre, The PSNI, The Crown Prosecutors office, who collectively managed to get this case all the way to the jury, despite the best efforts of the defense team.

Otherwise, start a thread in the conspiracy forum because that is where that nonsense belongs!

I think he/she was responding to your feeble attempt to start a 'conspiracy'.

Faugheen

Press Association saying both Jackson and Olding are gone.

So many people in this thread are going to be fuming.

However, lets remember it's their actions that caused this and not the actions of Twitter.

Crea

Press association reporting Jackson and Olding are leaving Ulster Rugby

opinionated3

So they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law, but still lose their jobs/livelihoods because of social media? Mob rule at it's worst IMO

Faugheen

opinionated3 wrote: »

So they were found not guilty in the eyes of the law, but still lose their jobs/livelihoods because of social media? Mob rule at it's worst IMO

Nah, they lost their jobs because of their actions that night.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Press Association saying both Jackson and Olding are gone.

So many people in this thread are going to be fuming.

However, lets remember it's their actions that caused this and not the actions of Twitter.

I'm happy for them actually. Get out of this toxic puritanical atmosphere.

Great to see young women and families in the crowd at the match tonight.

mfceiling

Faugheen wrote: »

Nah, they lost their jobs because of their actions that night.

No. Their actions were deemed ok by judge and jury. It was their private messages which became public that did them in.