Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-right-to-one-s-good-name-is-as-important-as-freedom-of-expression-1.387960

Article 40.3.2 of the Constitution says “the State shall, in particular, by its laws, protect as best it may from unjust attack (and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate) the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen.”

There you go. You're welcome.

I hardly need to point out that none of the above references any presumption of innocence, do I?

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

I hardly need to point out that none of the above references any presumption of innocence, do I?

Lol

Your really digging into this one aren't you.

If you can't seen the clear linear equation between the protection of "one's good name" and the presumption of innocent in being accused of a crime then I'm sorry, all your semantic juggling appears to have messed with your ability to comprehend.

greencap

alastair wrote: »

I hardly need to point out that none of the above references any presumption of innocence, do I?

https://ec.europa.eu/luxembourg/news/new-rules-guaranteeing-right-presumption-innocence-and-right-be-present-trial-apply-1-april_fr


New EU rules guaranteeing that anyone accused or suspected of a crime is innocent until proven guilty apply since Sunday 1April.

Portsalon

Shefwedfan wrote: »

That was a quick back track, nearly fall over?

I'm tempted to slap you down, but frankly, you're not worth it.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

Lol

Your really digging into this one aren't you.

If you can't seen the clear linear equation between the protection of "one's good name" and the presumption of innocent in being accused of a crime then I'm sorry, all your semantic juggling appears to have messed with your ability to comprehend.

It’s you who seemingly has the comprehension issues. Laws are no indicator of any presumption of innocence. A case can be brought against any party and it’s for the court to determine if the balance of evidence supports the case made. Nobody is disputing that. You’re merely dissembling from the reality that there’s no constitutional or legal support for your claim of a presumption of innocence outside a defense in court.

Scotty #

alastair wrote: »

The verdict doesn’t make any finding of innocence.

You do not what the word innocent means right?

sydthebeat

Anyway PJs not travelling.

So all this whinging is for nothing.

alastair

greencap wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/luxembourg/news/new-rules-guaranteeing-right-presumption-innocence-and-right-be-present-trial-apply-1-april_fr


New EU rules guaranteeing that anyone accused or suspected of a crime is innocent until proven guilty apply since Sunday 1April.

Those laws only apply within criminal proceedings. A prosecution.

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

It’s you who seemingly has the comprehension issues. Laws are no indicator of any presumption of innocence. A case can be brought against any party and it’s for the court to determine if the balance of evidence supports the case made. Nobody is disputing that. You’re merely dissembling from the reality that there’s no constitutional or legal support for your claim of a presumption of innocence outside a defense in court.

Wrong.

You are innocent before you enter the court.

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

Scotty # wrote: »

You do not what the word innocent means right?

He knows exactly what he is talking about. Unlike you.

alastair

Scotty # wrote: »

You do not what the word innocent means right?

I do know. Yes.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

Wrong.

You are innocent before you enter the court.

You have no presumption of innocence outside the court proceedings. None whatsoever.

sydthebeat

alastair wrote: »

You have no presumption of innocence outside the court proceedings. None whatsoever.

You have legal protection against someone who besmirches your good name

Lil Sally Anne Jnr.

sydthebeat wrote: »

You are innocent before you enter the court.

Yeah. Maybe stick to rugby laws in future, coz you know sweet FA about legal laws.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

You have legal protection against someone who besmirches your good name

Yes you do. Which implies nothing regarding presumption of innocence. You need to prove your case, and the defendant has a presumption of innocence within the court proceedings.

sydthebeat

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

Yeah. Maybe stick to rugby laws in future, coz you know sweet FA about legal laws.

I've already posted how we have protectionsenshrined in our constitution.

Perhaps you and your friend would like to post the evidence to prove your side of the argument??

Yurt2

It's there in black and white, codified in the 2009 Defamation Act. An injurious comment, particularly a claim made of someone's guilt pertaining to a crime when they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers of the same, violates the tort.

You do that, and you're cruising for the courts and you can get your chequebook out.

Aodhan O'Riordan made such a claim about this case in fact, he was forced on legal advice to issue an apology. He would have almost certainly lost the case had it came to it.

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

I've already posted how we have protectionsenshrined in our constitution.

Perhaps you and your friend would like to post the evidence to prove your side of the argument??

You posted constitutional protections which have nothing to do with presumption of innocence. As already stated.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't know why these people insist on harrassing an innocent man. They changed their tune to pretend how most men in group chats with the lads talk is 'abnormal' , should be ashamed of themselves.

So far 41 people have signed up to go... I think it'll be the pink hair brigade who believe in 86 genders. I wan't to know what the average Joe thinks of this. It's hard gauge the facebook comments, seems like an echo chainber of radical feminists bouncing off each other.

Average Joe here.

He's been squirted, move in. Mysogonistic gob****e he may be, he still had a right to earn a living.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hunky Monster wrote: »

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I don't know why these people insist on harrassing an innocent man. They changed their tune to pretend how most men in group chats with the lads talk is 'abnormal' , should be ashamed of themselves.

So far 41 people have signed up to go... I think it'll be the pink hair brigade who believe in 86 genders. I wan't to know what the average Joe thinks of this. It's hard gauge the facebook comments, seems like an echo chainber of radical feminists bouncing off each other.

Average Joe here.

He's been squirted, move in. Mysogonistic gob****e he may be, he still had a right to earn a living.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

It's there in black and white, codified in the 2009 Defamation Act. An injurious comment, particularly a claim made of someone's guilt pertaining to a crime when they have been found guilty by a jury of their peers of the same, violates the tort.

You do that, and you're cruising for the courts and you can get your chequebook out.

Aodhan O'Riordan made such a claim about this case in fact, he was forced on legal advice to issue an apology. He would have almost certainly lost the case had it came to it.

Lot of speculation there. But what do you believe is ‘there in black and white’? Certainly not a presumption of innocence. Aodhan would have had the only presumption of innocence in that case, and only within the scope of the trial.

MOR316

I see lots of "Leave him alone" and "He was found not guilty by the courts, it's pathetic to be harrassing him" type posts in this thread.

Interesting in comparison...

Yurt2

alastair wrote: »

Lot of speculation there. But what do you believe is ‘there in black and white’? Certainly not a presumption of innocence. Aodhan would have had the only presumption of innocence in that case, and only within the scope of the trial.

A jury of their peers quite literally handed down a verdict of not guilty. Should you make an utterance in a public forum making a claim they are rapists in the face of those facts, you have by very definition violated the tort of defamation.

I feel like I'll have to get the hand puppets out to explain this to you any further.

Of course O'Riordan can mount a defense (he didn't by the way, he admitted wrongdoing on legal advice after initial posturing) thanks Lionel Hutz, I never knew that.

alastair

Yurt! wrote: »

A jury of their peers quite literally handed down a verdict of not guilty. Should you make an utterance in a public forum making a claim they are rapists in the face of those facts, you have by very definition violated the tort of defamation.

I feel like I'll have to get the hand puppets out to explain this to you any further.

Of course O'Riordan can mount a defense (he didn't by the way, he admitted wrongdoing on legal advice after initial posturing) thanks Lionel Hutz, I never knew that.

Ahh, you seem like a delicate petal. But for confirmation, there’s nothing defamatory in stating that I believe the woman in this case. Literally thousands have stated the same, and Jackson has sued precisely nobody.

The point about actual presumption of innocence - it would apply singularly to Aodhan in the notional case you posited, and then only within the terms of his defense in court. There would be no presumption of innocence applied to anyone else, and none outside the courtroom.

Portsalon

ELM327 wrote: »

.. not only were the accused found not guilty, the case should never have been brought.

Be a dear and drop the line to the judge informing her of that. Because she stated:

“This was a highly complex police investigation and the prosecution was warranted albeit the jury did not consider that the charges had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence bore the characteristics of a Rubik cube, capable of bearing myriad conclusions, depending on the jury’s view of the evidence. But those were conclusions for the jury to reach, not for the prosecution."

Be sure to attach a scanned copy of your Diploma in Legal Studies to your email, so she'll know what she's dealing with!

Source: Irish Times.

Shefwedfan

Portsalon wrote: »

I'm tempted to slap you down, but frankly, you're not worth it.

Ahh yes, threat of physical violence



No surprise

sydthebeat

So no proof posted yet then??

alastair

sydthebeat wrote: »

So no proof posted yet then??

Proof of what? A non-existent constitutional measure of your imagination? 😂

Can we close this thread, he's not playing in Ireland.

MEGA BRO WOLF 5000

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Can we close this thread, he's not playing in Ireland.

Theres still a protest going ahead. There’s plenty to talk about.