Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is even better news, somebody has finally had the balls to stand up and be counted and not blackmailed or bullied.

You do realise nobody will pay them anywhere near what Guinness were paying them.

Premiership clubs are haemorrhaging money as it is too.

is_that_so

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is even better news, somebody has finally had the balls to stand up and be counted and not blackmailed or bullied.

Well, you make your bed. This was always going to come their way. They made a player call on ability but on someone whose personal behaviour a lot of people have issues with. There's free will at work there, from LI and people who object to who they've signed.

Laois_Man

Jackman25 wrote: »

Fair play to them. I hope they go on to have a great season.

The reality is though - the spotlight is going to be on their other sponsors to leave them, and any prospective new one's to run a mile!

thelad95

Rape is unbelievably difficult to prove and people can be acquitted on rape charges for a plethora of reasons, with the “accuser made it all up” being way down the list in terms of frequency and probability.

A flimsy prosecution, insufficient evidence and a strong defense unfortunately leads many rape cases to a place where the defendant is not proven guilty (this does not prove innocence whatsoever it just means they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did it).

Regardless of the verdict, the evidence that did come out including text conversations and the behavior of the gentleman in question on that night is more than a reasonable justification for a sponsor to take the moral high ground and disassociate themselves with that behaviour.

Anyone who immediately points to the young lady in question and says she made it all up obviously has a lack of understanding of how any judicial system works and should perhaps consider even a quick self education on the case (which I fear certain posters in this thread have neglected to undertake) before they affirm their opinion of her slanderous nature.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

You do realise nobody will pay them anywhere near what Guinness were paying them.

Premiership clubs are haemorrhaging money as it is too.

All the more heartening to see them stand up to Diageo...who no doubt would have been virtue signaling all over social media had they won out here.

The rest of LI statement (the bolded bit) seems to infer a curious relationship anyhow, that may have been on the rocks earlier.

London Irish said its management is “understandably disappointed that Diageo has chosen not to renew its sponsorship agreement with the club, and particularly the manner in which the company has chosen to do so”.

“The club has always respected the right for everyone to have an opinion, and their right to express that opinion,” the statement said.

“London Irish has been open and honest with all of its sponsors, including offering to meet Diageo’s senior management in Dublin in May, 2019. This offer was not taken up.”

is_that_so

Jackman25 wrote: »

You must be thrilled. Keep it going and maybe he will up homeless and penniless on the streets. Would that be enough penance to suit the high priest of boards.ie?

Stand back and think about it calmly. Actions do have consequences, unfortunately for him and his new club, very predictable ones.

SirGerryAdams

jm08 wrote: »

Diageo are gone

Mils Muliaina

Gerbrandt Grobler

Ronan O'Gara

Gareth Thomas

Sean O'Brien

When did Guinness discover these new found values?

Cryptopagan

It might be a big faceless corporation but this is the right move by Diageo. Hope London Irish folds. Imagine stooping so low as to sign someone with Jackson’s history.

SirGerryAdams

I would chip in a fiver in support of LI if they have a way of donating. Will probably actually buy a jersey in support of them.

Jackman25

is_that_so wrote: »

Stand back and think about it calmly. Actions do have consequences, in his case unfortunately for him and his new club, very predictable ones.

I am perfectly calm and what happens to PJ will make absolutely no difference to my life.
I am not filled with hate or vindictiveness in any way. Sometimes the consequences far far outweigh the actions as Jon Ronsons book about social media shaming brilliantly illustrates.

Jackman25

Cryptopagan wrote: »

It might be a big faceless corporation but this is the right move by Diageo. Hope London Irish folds. Imagine stooping so low as to sign someone with Jackson’s history.

That vindictiveness will give you an ulcer. Imagine hoping a club and all its employees fold.
What a scumbag thing to hope for. When the mask slips on the righteous, the raw nastiness is really exposed.

is_that_so

Jackman25 wrote: »

I am perfectly calm and what happens to PJ will make absolutely no difference to my life.
I am not filled with hate or vindictiveness in any way. Sometimes the consequences far far outweigh the actions as Jon Ronsons book about social media shaming brilliantly illustrates.

I think this set of circumstances goes a long way beyond random public shaming even if it offers a forum to do so.

mfceiling

Cryptopagan wrote: »

It might be a big faceless corporation but this is the right move by Diageo. Hope London Irish folds. Imagine stooping so low as to sign someone with Jackson’s history.

Wow!! You really are a spiteful little person aren't you? An entire club with a its various employees, players etc to fold because they signed someone who wasn't found guilty of any charges by a court of law.
A very spiteful little individual indeed.

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

9% of cases in Ireland are false accusations, among the highest in Europe according to a link I posted earlier in the thread.
Why indeed would somebody do it.

So 91% are true.

Diageo are a ****ing disgrace.

Faugheen

Look at all the outrage in here.

You should all start a boycott against Diageo for being so offended.

jm08

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Mils Muliaina - What has Mils's arrest got to do with the IRFU? It was the British system that accused him.

Gerbrandt Grobler From what I can gather, GG's contract wasn't renewed.

Ronan O'Gara What did ROG do?

Gareth Thomas I didn't know GT was accused of raping someone?

Sean O'Brien I bet Leinster/Ireland are glad they are not renewing his contract.


When did Guinness discover these new found values? As a former employee of Guinness (back in the 80s), I'd be very sure that Guinness had very strict codes of conduct on how its employees behaved and represented the company.

Ohmeha

jm08 wrote: »

In fairness to Guinness, it has a very fine reputation for being a responsible employer with a social conscience.

Wow, Diageo and social conscience worded in the same sentence

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said...read carefully now...he is NOT IN CONTROL of his public image. The public decide who and what he is.

His public image is made up of the publics perception of his actions. He controls his own actions, therefore he controls his public image. Its not the publics fault he behaved as he did, its Paddy Jacksons fault and the public are then entitled to make up their own mind, which they clearly have.

Laois_Man wrote: »

The reality is though - the spotlight is going to be on their other sponsors to leave them, and any prospective new one's to run a mile!

Thats the long and short of it. While they'll probably hold on to their other current sponsors (mainly construction companies and waste collection/sewerage companies) they will find it hard to attract new sponsorship, especially companies the size of Guinness.

I'd say the board of London Irish are fuming now. They've to pay Jacksons wages when at the same time he is after costing them two sponsorships in the space of a few weeks, which is the very money that pays his wages. He certainly won't be winning employee of the month, thats for sure.

jeffleppard

jm08 wrote: »

Why would anyone falsely accuse someone of rape? What is there to be gained from it? You think it has been easy for the young woman (who was named on social media)? Why would someone do that to her anyway?

Are you seriously trying to imply the rate of false accusations is 0%? Even studies done by victim advocacy groups (i.e. people who have a strong vested interest in the outcome being low) with extremely conservative definitions of false accusation still result in rates of about 5%, which is hardly negligible (for context, in the UK there are about 50,000 reports of rape per year - a 5% false accusation rate would mean 2,500 people per year get falsely accused).

As for the reasons for false allegations, various studies have been done on this, e.g. this one on 57 proven false allegations:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28213722

Reasons include, but are not limited to:

Financial gain; emotional gain; alibi/covering up behaviour; mental illness; relabelling; attention-seeking; revenge; sympathy; and (from the study above):

A large proportion, 20% of complainants, said that they did not know why they filed a false allegation

I.e. some people did it simply because they wanted to

griffin100

There’s something quite ironic about a company that makes and sells a drug developing a conscience about a sordid night and series of events where most of the main characters were under the influence of said drug.

Cryptopagan

mfceiling wrote: »

Wow!! You really are a spiteful little person aren't you? An entire club with a its various employees, players etc to fold because they signed someone who wasn't found guilty of any charges by a court of law.
A very spiteful little individual indeed.

I 100% believe what happened to that girl that night was non-consensual. There was no reason for her to make that up. So to hell with Jackson, and to hell with his supporters.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

So 91% are true.

Wow...how long did it take you to do the math there.

9% are false. I don't know the figure for how many were true. I would imagine 91% is not the figure for provencases. the figure would be a good deal lower.

Mrsmum

griffin100 wrote: »

There’s something quite ironic about a company that makes and sells a drug developing a conscience about a sordid night and series of events where most of the main characters were under the influence of said drug.

They have an easy answer to that - drink responsibly.

jeffleppard

jm08 wrote: »

So 91% are true.

No, because it depends on:

a. the definitions of true and false used in the study as to how high the rate of allegations that are designated true or false will be, and
b. most fall into the category of unprovable one way or the other

What you're saying is effectively just the inverse of saying something like '5% of all rape accused get found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which must mean 95% of accusations are false', which is obviously nonsense

lalababa

What exactly are Diageos values? And how does PJ not align with them.
Is one of Diageos steadfast values Not to be accused of rape but found innocent?
WTF??? You couldn't make this **** up. Tis almost like the start of some dystopian Facebook virtue signalling idiot nightmare.

Haha London Irish thought that one through alright :pac:

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

They have an easy answer to that - drink responsibly.

The girl won't be getting sponsored either so.

weldoninhio

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

really? because you have proof she lied, right?

The only people we know lied are the rugby players.

mfceiling

Cryptopagan wrote: »

I 100% believe what happened to that girl that night was non-consensual. There was no reason for her to make that up. So to hell with Jackson, and to hell with his supporters.

Ah you're another of these #ibelieveher idiots. The courts never charged him with rape and he walked out of court with no sentence applied. However it's not good enough for the "I don't care what the judge and jury decided" brigade.

He has kept his head down for the past year and has neither spoken to the media about his name being constantly dragged through the gutter. His social media posts have been few and far between...Mostly of his dog larking around.

This question has been asked numerous times in this thread but never answered...

WHAT MORE CAN PADDY JACKSON DO TO ATONE FOR THAT NIGHT AND HOW MUCH LONGER WILL HE BE ACCUSED OF SOMETHING THAT HE WASN'T CHARGED WITH IN COURT?

facehugger99

There'll be a lot of Paddy Jackson fans crying into their Guinness tonight.

Maybe ye lads could organise a boycott?

FrancieBrady

Augeo wrote: »

Haha London Irish thought that one through alright :pac:

Signs are that they did when they sought to speak to their sponsors in May.

Their sponsors curiously declined though. Why would a sponsor (apparently conscious of it's associations) do that?

This in may ways is a great day for sport. The sponsor is NOT calling the shots. They have been told to shove their money.

SirGerryAdams

jm08 wrote: »

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Mils Muliaina - What has Mils's arrest got to do with the IRFU? It was the British system that accused him.

Gerbrandt Grobler From what I can gather, GG's contract wasn't renewed.

Ronan O'Gara What did ROG do?

Gareth Thomas I didn't know GT was accused of raping someone?

Sean O'Brien I bet Leinster/Ireland are glad they are not renewing his contract.


When did Guinness discover these new found values? As a former employee of Guinness (back in the 80s), I'd be very sure that Guinness had very strict codes of conduct on how its employees behaved and represented the company.

And? Mils Muliaina was playing for an Irish club. Do they only have to behave well in the country they're playing in? or could Paddy Jackson have raped as many Italians as he liked and be grand?

Groblers contract wasn't renewed but Diageo didn't pull sponsorship did they?

O'Gara spoke about his wife like a piece of meat - "I wouldn't be nervous getting up on Jessica but I would kicking a ball."

Gareth Thomas had multiple sessions of sex with men (who have a higher chance of HIV) bareback behind his wife's back. And are you saying it's because Paddy jackson was accused of rape? Sure anyone can be accused of rape!

weldoninhio

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is all fine, if you believe she was in fact raped and not in a consensual situation.

I don't know if she was lying or not, but I think ultimately she was badly advised to proceed here. She wasn't on trial by the way, the men who were were always going to defend themselves.

She didn’t proceed anywhere. She was a witness in a case between the CPS and the egg chasers et al.

Lol.....that wasn't your spiel last week iirc Francie.

SirGerryAdams

facehugger99 wrote: »

There'll be a lot of Paddy Jackson fans crying into their Guinness tonight.

Maybe ye lads could organise a boycott?

We heard you first time, did no one reply?

mfceiling

facehugger99 wrote: »

There'll be a lot of Paddy Jackson fans crying into their Guinness tonight.

Maybe ye lads could organise a boycott?

I will boycott Diageo products for sure. Makes no difference to me if I never touch another pint of Guinness. As for the other swill (hophouse 13 etc)...Well there's ample choice of craft beers that taste 100 times better than their muck tbh.

weldoninhio

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This is even better news, somebody has finally had the balls to stand up and be counted and not blackmailed or bullied.

What did you expect LI to do?? Announce that they were folding??

Kenny B

Cryptopagan wrote: »

It might be a big faceless corporation but this is the right move by Diageo. Hope London Irish folds. Imagine stooping so low as to sign someone with Jackson’s history.

Throw your Whatsapp up for public consumption and we see what kind of a saint you really are,

As a wise man once said, 'Let he with out Sin, cop on and make up for lost time',

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

His public image is made up of the publics perception of his actions. He controls his own actions, therefore he controls his public image. Its not the publics fault he behaved as he did, its Paddy Jacksons fault and the public are then entitled to make up their own mind, which they clearly have.

The twitter mob have judged him and nothing he has done has altered that. If he publicly flagelated himself it still wouldn't be enough to change his image.

Stop talking nonsense. There is literally nothing he can do to change his image...others are deciding what it is.

facehugger99

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

I would chip in a fiver in support of LI if they have a way of donating. Will probably actually buy a jersey in support of them.

Good man - that'll make up for losing Diagio.

jm08

Ohmeha wrote: »

Wow, Diageo and social conscience worded in the same sentence

Not Diageo, Guinness (which is the brand concerned).

FrancieBrady

weldoninhio wrote: »

What did you expect LI to do?? Announce that they were folding??

They could have bowed to the money and got rid of Jackson.
The sponsor has too much power so hopefully this is a bit of kickback against that.

hatrickpatrick

Pathetic and unethical move by Diageo in my view, but I don't think this will have a huge impact on the club or on Jackson's career. It is yet another example of the need for these cases to be held away from the public view, or with pseudonyms used (as in the case of the ongoing Kriegel murder trial) in order to prevent innocent people from suffering real-life consequences despite not being convicted of any wrongdoing.

It's only a matter of time before this happens in most Western countries in my view. The 24 hour news cycle and social media have made it impossible for 'innocent until proven guilty' to have any real relevance in the current status quo - avoiding judicial consequences but having other areas of one's life destroyed because of bad publicity is very much a perversion of the values democratic societies are supposed to hold dear. In Ireland, we have these rules - but correct me if I'm wrong, they are entirely dependent upon the alleged victim not waiving his or her right to anonymity, and in the case that this happens, the defendant's name is fair game just like it was in this trial? Does this hold true during the case and/or if a not guilty verdict is rendered? I'm not familiar with the specifics of the law here.

Diageo obviously have a right to do whatever they want, but it's highly unethical and goes against core democratic values, to take action against an individual even where that individual has been found innocent, on the basis of private communications which only came into the public domain because of accusations which were subsequently found to be groundless.

Finally, for those calling this a "false allegation" and implying malicious intent on the part of the accuser, this is very unfair in my view. As I posted in the previous thread about this, it seems to me that the most likely sequence of events here was one of those nights which I'm sure we've all had, in which she agreed to something while off her face on some substance or substances, and sobered up in the middle of the act, at which point her rational brain kicked in and said "****, how did I get here and who the **** is this guy"?

We've all been there, or at least I'm sure most of us who grew up in the 2000s have been. I once sobered up and found myself spooning a woman who I knew would never have gone for me in a million years, and she was just as confused as I was, until our friends laughingly showed us videos of the pair of us very much reciprocating eachothers' advanced earlier in the evening. Neither of us had the slightest recollection of basically any part of the night. These things happen when you get f*cked up, and in my view the alleged victim probably genuinely believed this had been non-consensual even if it had been while they were all sh!tfaced.

A very unfortunate situation for everyone involved, but not one which should have led to difficulty for anyone's career. And the text messages, while tasteless, were private messages in a private chat which were never meant to be read by anyone other than the intended recipients. Any young person in any group chat has sent messages in jest which would cause them to die of embarrassment, to say the least, were they ever shared in the public domain.

This is why the laws around trials need to be changed to preclude such details becoming public knowledge in the absence of guilty verdicts.

Beyond that, I hope London Irish stick to their guns and Jackson can have a decent career going into the future.

weldoninhio

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They could have bowed to the money and got rid of Jackson.
The sponsor has too much power so hopefully this is a bit of kickback against that.

What jersey sponsor has too much power?? What colour is the sky in your world??

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Not Diageo, Guinness (which is the brand concerned).

This Guinness?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/guinness-to-pull-six-nations-ads-over-immigrant-offence-concerns-1.3780342

Who made a mistake and typed something they shouldn't have and thought better of later? This the 'Guinness' we are talking about? :rolleyes:

Cryptopagan

Kenny B wrote: »

Throw your Whatsapp up for public consumption and we see what kind of a saint you really are,

As a wise man once said, 'Let he with out Sin, cop on and make up for lost time',

No marks for reading comprehension there. I said nothing about messages.

facehugger99

mfceiling wrote: »

I will boycott Diageo products for sure. Makes no difference to me if I never touch another pint of Guinness. As for the other swill (hophouse 13 etc)...Well there's ample choice of craft beers that taste 100 times better than their muck tbh.

Sounds like it was a tough decision for you to boycott their stuff - you've got to respect that.:pac:

FrancieBrady

weldoninhio wrote: »

What jersey sponsor has too much power?? What colour is the sky in your world??

They were trying to pick the team here and got told 'No, we would rather move on without you'.

weldoninhio

FrancieBrady wrote: »

This Guinness?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/guinness-to-pull-six-nations-ads-over-immigrant-offence-concerns-1.3780342

Who made a mistake and typed something they shouldn't have and thought better of later? This the 'Guinness' we are talking about? :rolleyes:

That ad was perfectly fine. Some people didn’t like it, so they pulled it. I don’t get your point, is there one??